Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Wipeout 2048[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I got stalled on my previous nomination I have nominated this article in the mean time since I took steps to ensure it was FA-ready, or I hope so anyway! I believe that this article meets the well-written, well-researched and comprehensiveness aspects of the FA criteria. I think I overdone the reception section slightly but it has since been condensed and restructured to read as cohesive prose. I also think its reception is important because this game was a PlayStation Vita launch title and "tested the waters" of the console so to speak. Another fun fact is that the game acted as a testbed for the console and had an influence in its design. Sources on development weren't plentiful, but I'm confident I squeezed enough out of the reliable sources.

I'd like to make the Wipeout series a Featured Topic. All of the instalments are currently GAs, but if all goes well this should be the first of five—can't promise anything! JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on images:
  • File:Wipeout 2048 Boxart.jpg: The non-free use rationale is fairly basic; I think some more stuff can be added. And the rationale for the other page the file isn't used on removed.
  • File:Wipeout 2048 gameplay.jpg: This file is being used to illustrate the gameplay not the game which is different. The current rationale would be appropriate if the file was used in the infobox header.
  • File:PlayStation-Vita-1101-FL.jpg: Not seeing any issues, other than having difficulty of verifying the caption from the adjacent section.
Good alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Please see the FAC instructions about when a nomination is archived. "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." My inclination is to remove this, but I don't recall you doing this before so would be prepared to grant an exemption this once. However, as this is the second time this has happened in a few days, I'm also inclined to be less willing to bend the rules in future. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I'm so sorry, I was aware of this rule but for some reason I always thought it only applied to nominating the same article in the space of two weeks, not a different article. I always had that in my mind ever since my FAC failed back in 2012. I would be fine if you decide to remove this, but it won't happen again. JAGUAR  17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS St Vincent (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

St Vincent had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired during the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. She was reduced to reserve after the war and was scrapped in the early 1920s. I've trimmed some of the extraneous details since the MilHist A-class review (which included an image review) last month and I believe that it meets the FA-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation Bernhard[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation Bernhard is a fascinating tale of what could have been the Nazi's most powerful weapon of the Second World War, utterly wasted because of poor management in the confused and conflicting bureaucratic infighting in the German high command. A plan to counterfeit British currency to bring about the collapse of the strongest economy in the world was changed into a way to pay for intelligence operations (which it did), although it made some Germans extremely rich in the process. In and among the greed and mismanagement, the plan ensured the survival of around 150 concentration camp prisoners who were the ones forced to make print the money. A badly worded German order to kill them, and an engine failure of a truck, led to a last minute survival of the group, of whom one is still alive, I believe. This article has undergone a complete re-write recently and reached the standards of a MILHIST A class (passing this morning). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Per my detailed comments at the A-Class review here. I gave my comments then and the article a quick look-in this morning before supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Roosevelt dime[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a small, commonplace coin (in the US anyway) that has been struck for seventy years with little drama or variation. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Fightstar[edit]

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. While I will be largely busy on weekdays due to tough school classes, I know I will have time to work on this on weekends because it usually takes a while to get the coordinators to close FACs. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Bronze Age stone circle in southern England. It will likely intrigue editors interested in archaeology, religion, and folklore. The article is fairly short and is already GA-rated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

An interesting read – just a few comments:

Infobox
  • Not sure if I like the map caption ("Shown within Dorset"); how about "Location within Dorset"?
Location
  • "Enclosed within iron railings ...": no mention is made of when these railings were erected; is this information available?
Bibliography
  • Some of the author's names can be linked to articles. I take it the links were omitted here because they were linked in the body of the article. I would link them here also, but that's my personal opinion.
General
  • There is an inconsistency with units of measure in the article: sometimes the primary unit is metric with imperial conversion; other times it's imperial with metric conversion; in some instances there is no conversion. WP:MEASUREMENT says "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric ..." Distance, it seems may be miles, but, as I see it, everything else should be metric with imperial conversions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • There is inconsistency in the use of the thousands separator in years, eg. 3,300 and 3000. One or the other should be used.

Bruce1eetalk 17:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "located" (lots of these), "over a period", "A number of": Some reviewers object to these phrases in some contexts; I have no comment.
  • "silent and empty monuments": quote marks, but I can't tell from the text who said it.
  • "The area of modern Dorset": Does this mean "modern Dorset"?
  • "thin scatter": If it was an actual thin scatter, remove the quotes. If you don't like the term, use a different term. If you're quoting someone, say who, but this isn't something I would quote.
  • "The Nine Stones circle has been described": WP:INTEXT violation. INTEXT has been disputed a bit, but I think we can live with it. If it isn't important who said something, then the exact wording probably isn't all that important, either.
  • "In 1965 a woman from the Isle of Portland stated that her own father had always raised his cap when passing the circle.": I don't know why this is significant, or how it's related to the rest of the paragraph. Also, see the next bullet point.
  • The last paragraph of Folklore, and all of Recent developments: I have concerns about FAC's "high quality" requirements ... is the say-so of a random person what we're looking for at FAC? But this is above my pay grade.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Thoroughly charming. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Technically, this nomination is out of process as the nominator had an article archived within two weeks. However, as that article had little review, and as this already has a support, I'm happy to let this one go rather than stop it on a technicality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies Sarastro1 - it seems that I got a little confused with regard to this rule. I always used to think that there was a two-week embargo period that had to be observed following the end of any FAC nomination, till your comment to me here in February. I mis-remembered your comment and somehow thought that there was no two-week period at all following the termination of an FAC. It won't happen again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

This is great. Some minor quibbles.

  • Location launches straight into a grid location. That's probably less useful or interesting than more descriptive information like Dorset or Southern England. I know you mention Dorset in the lead, but the lead should cover material found in the main body of the article.
  • The area of modern Dorset has only is slightly odd, maybe just Dorset?
  • The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology, being of comparatively small size, with none exceeding 28 metres (92 feet) in diameter. This confuses me slightly. Are they simplistic because they are small? Also, what are they small compared to? Other stone circles? Other stone circles in Britain?
  • Why only metric in the lead, but then leading with imperial in the description?
  • The site is in the care of English Heritage, when did they aquire it?

Will be happy to support when my points have been addressed or explained. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Time[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Adventure Time, an American animated television series created by Pendleton Ward that follows the adventures of Finn (a human boy) and Jake (a magical, shape-shifting dog and Finn's adoptive brother) in a post-apocalyptic world of Ooo. The show has been quite the pop culture phenomenon these last few years, and has won numerous awards, including a Peabody and several Emmys. When I first started working on the article in 2012, it looked like this. Since then, I have greatly expanded it, both in terms of size as well as coverage. I have used the highest-quality sources (all of which are archived, if applicable), and I have had it copy-edited a handful of times, both by myself as well as others. The content is solid, the prose reads well, and it is accurate. While it is currently a good article, I believe it is ready for the next step. Also, if anyone wishes to do source spot-checks, I have access to many of the books, and I'd be willing to send out scans to expedite the process.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. MCMLXXXIX 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: Good catch. I have added alt text to all the images.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! -- MCMLXXXIX 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • Replace the (rare) curly quotes with straight quotes.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A joy to read ... now I want to watch the show. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not certain about the last one-sentence paragraph of the lead. Would it be possible to integrate that information into the above paragraphs instead? It could fit in the second paragraph.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not certain about the value of the ukulele image as it does not add that much to the reader's understanding of the material. It seems to be there more for padding/break up a large amount of text.
  • I'll go ahead and remove it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I really like the content of the "Critical reviews" section, but I would suggest trying to make this more accessible to an unfamiliar reader. I would suggest revising this section around topic as this can come across as a list of reviewer's thoughts. I would recommend looking at the following resource for help on this matter: here
  • Are there any negative reviews of the series? This is more of a clarification question. Just want to make sure to make this as comprehensive as possible.
  • I'm sure there are, but honestly, I can't really find any from major sources; most places like the show a lot. The one negative thing I did come across was from Perlmutter. I bet there is some controversy about the show's content (e.g. cartoon violence, mild language, fart jokes, etc.) so I'll look into that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. I just want to make sure that the section satisfies the "comprehensive" aspect of the FA criteria. If you cannot find anything from a reliable source, then it is fine. I just wanted to check and clarify about this in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gen. Quon: Everything looks good. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to work on the rest tomorrow. If I forget, feel free to ping me, but I'll try not to!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries. Take as much time as you need. You have done a lot of wonderful work with this article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: the changes look great and the article is very strong. If possible, could you also help me with my FAC as well? Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Fantasy VII. The seventh overall entry in the Final Fantasy series and the first entry for the PlayStation, it is generally hailed as one of the most important and best-remembered video games in the history of the medium. This article was delisted as a Featured Article in 2008 due to quality concerns, and has since been lingering at GA level since then. With the arrival of Final Fantasy VII Remake and the 20th anniversary of Final Fantasy VII, it was suggested and decided to make a push towards bringing this article back to its former place as an FA. Along with myself, this project has been a collaborative effort with @TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, Sergecross73, Deckiller, and Brayden96: our work has included grammar work, reference maintenance, and the expansion/trimming/tidying of multiple sections. I hope they will also help bring this article through the final stages to FA status. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. -- MCMLXXXIX 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: I've added alts to all images. They can be improved if needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! By the way, if you don't add a signature, pinging won't work. -- MCMLXXXIX 20:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "A high-definition remake is in development for the PlayStation 4.": Potentially an ASOF issue here, but I don't take a position on those.
  • "casting magical abilities": Doesn't sound right ... how can you cast an ability?
  • "planet's lifeforce": linked to Gaia hypothesis, but it's nothing like that hyphothesis. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Avalanche": For this word and maybe others, sometimes you capitalize and sometimes not. I don't have a strong feeling about this if there's a clean break from one style to the other, but some reviewers will see it as a mistake, so you probably want to fix it.
  • "storyboards": A good habit to get into is to ask yourself every time you see quote marks: why the quotes? I don't know why these quote marks are here ... were they not storyboards? Were they sort of storyboards? Unless I'm missing something, the readers won't know what you mean either.
  • "While sprites proved more popular": With the staff? What about them was more popular?
  • In Reception, there's a {{vague}} tag.
  • In Reception, the logical quotation (WP:LQ) suddenly goes all to hell. Only put a comma or period inside the quote marks if it's there in the original, and if the quote is substantial; a good rule-of-thumb is that a clause (with a verb) is substantial.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I learned a lot of video game history here, and it wasn't hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: I've done my best with your comments, and done some further work of my own. Many thanks.
Looks good, though I haven't checked the LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

X-10 Graphite Reactor[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The X-10 Project was the Manhattan Project effort to breed plutonium for atomic bombs using nuclear reactors. As part of this, an experimental reactor was built at the Clinton Engineer Works known as the X-10 Graphite Reactor. It operated for many years, and is now a tourist attraction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "but had sufficient confidence in his calculations that the water-cooled reactor would.": Would what?
    Well spotted., Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Your writing gets better all the time. It's really hard to make a subject like this concrete, the way you do it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The article might have been nominated earlier, but the US National Parks Service website suddenly went down in January. It's back now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Evita (1996 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about...the 1996 film depicting the life of Eva Perón, from her beginnings, rise to power and death at the age of 33. FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "June 21, 1978": See WP:MOS. Here (and elsewhere), a comma is needed afterwards if there's no other punctuation there.
  • "they are upset": About?
  • "Lader taught Madonna how to sing using her diaphragm rather than just her throat, allowing her to project her voice in a much more cohesive manner.": I'm dubious that this was the first time she heard about singing from the diaphragm, and I think readers will need clarification even if it's true.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments I think even though the film received according to review aggregation websites an average of mixed reviews, the protagonism of Madonna has had attracted an universal acclaim. There is some yesterday and today sources like this: 1 and 2. So, one of the most important things in an article is to be neutral, and there is not something to treat it lightly, specially when some source claims that Madonna "popularised" Argentinian politics. So, my request is to mention in the lead and critical response section, this specification about her acting (as they do in other articles, like Suicide Squad with "Robbie and Leto's performances"). Thanks Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Hills, Bogotá[edit]

Nominator(s): Tisquesusa (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Eastern Hills of the Colombian capital Bogotá.

  1. - article is imho complete covering all areas and linking to specific main articles for further reading
  2. - list of sources is extensive and reliable
  3. - images are there to show the location and different characteristics
  4. - infobox, tables and other features are complete
  5. - other, supporting articles (geological formations, rivers, earthquakes) are in preparation or have been newly created already

In general, I think the article meets the standards for FA. Please review and I am open to comments about the contents of the article Tisquesusa (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose (for now at least). There are an excessive number of images (and too many galleries), many of which are forced into sections which creates large area of white space. There are a lot of out-sized images and too much sandwiched text between two images.
In terms of the sources, there is no need to have so much capitalisation in the names or titles, and you need to ensure the formatting of the references is consistent (There are examples of p.1 and p. 1 and some page ranges that are p, not pp. - The Bounder (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

This is a fascinating article marred by significant layout flaws. I find the prose to be generally professional, and that makes me want to encourage you. After spending quite a bit of time reading and taking notes line by line, I've decided to stop about midway through the History section to see how you respond to what The Bounder said and what I have said below.
Layout
  • I agree with The Bounder's comments above about the excessive number of images. There are way too many. I suggest that you choose only the ones that are necessary to illustrate a point or points in the text and to place them, generally at default size, entirely within the section they refer to. All the rest of the images will still be accessible via the Commons. (As an aside here, I would note that each image that you decide to keep will need alt text, and the thought of creating alt text for all of these images might by itself induce you to avoid illustrations that are purely decorative.)
  • The collapsible lists create a similar layout problem. In addition, according to MOS:COLLAPSE, they will likely create accessibility difficulties. I suggest rendering the essence of these lists as straight prose and deleting the "show–hide" lists.
I have trimmed down on the images, the ones remaining indicate the important features. Not all readers are equally visually focused. The lists have been uncollapsed and the flora and fauna made into a separate list linked in the article.
Thanks. It looks better than before but still has large white spaces and an overabundance of visuals, including the two collapsing templates. It would be relatively easy to eliminate images such as the white-tailed deer from Kansas that seem only tangentially related to the Eastern Hills of Colombia, and it would not be difficult to turn the hydrology table into a paragraph or two of straight prose. These are just examples, not a complete list of possible improvements. Rather than poring over the Manual of Style for an answer to every question that pops into my head, I have often looked at WP:FA to see what others have done to meet the criteria. For example, you might find Mendip Hills worth looking at. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The white-tailed deer is really key to most of the history of the Eastern Hills. It was the most abundant species and the main ingredient of the food of the Muisca. I've linked sources on that here, others are at Aguazuque and related preceramic sites. Same for the spectacled bear. It may be today it's a very restricted species, but just last week one of those was killed in Fómeque, just to the east of the Eastern Hills. It's important to point those species out, so having them in an image. Pity we don't have a white-tailed deer from Colombia and the nice picture is from Kansas, but that doesn't make it an "irrelevant" picture, it's just a nice example (honouring the photographer/uploader of that one to Commons). Ideally all photos are from the Eastern Hills themselves, which works for other images, but for the white-tailed deer that would be impossible; the urbanisation of the area doesn't allow for sightings of those deer in the Eastern Hills. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to keep the white-tailed deer if you think it is important. I meant only to use it as an example of something that could possibly be removed in order to resolve the layout problems. Unless you can find a way to eliminate the big white spaces, for example, the article will not likely meet the FA criteria. I realize that the images are important to you and that it might be painful to remove many more of them or to reduce their sizes, but when you nominate for FA, you are asking everyone who takes part in the process to agree that the article is as good as possible. That necessarily means conforming to the encyclopedia's layout guidelines as well as a large number of other guidelines to be found in the Manual of Style. I hope this explanation helps. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Lede
  • "The NNW-SSE trending mountain chain..." – Compass directions in Wikipedia are generally spelled out unless part of a street address. Maybe "the mountain chain, which trends north-northwest to south-southeast" would better conform to the Manual of Style. Ditto for other similar instances in the article.
Solved
Hydrology
  • Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills, with as most important rivers from south to north..." – Word or words missing?
The ":" refers to the table directly below, now expanded to be easier to read.
Ah, I see. I missed the importance of the colon on my first pass-through, and I find the sentence structure confusing. Instead of "Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills, with as most important rivers from south to north:" might I suggest this for clarity: "Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills. The most important rivers from south to north are:"?
Flora
  • "A study of the vegetational cover has revealed the presence of 29 types of vegetation covering 63.16% of the total area. The remaining 36.84% is used by urban settlement, agricultural lands and quarries." – Better if rounded to nearest whole numbers; i.e, "about 63 percent" and "the remaining 37 percent"?
Solved
  • " In the Eastern Hills a total of 443 species of flora have been identified, of which 156 species in 111 genera and 64 families of vascular plants." – Word or words missing?
The 156 species refer to the families of vascular plants.
I'm still confused by this. Does this mean that 156 of the 443 identified species belong to 111 genera in 64 families? What about the other 287 species? Finetooth (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reworded it. And I am adding the geological formations to solve those red links. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For the sake of readability, I'd suggest reducing the long list of species, most of which are redlinked, to a small sampling.
Made into a separate list; there many red links are present but I've added the photos available at Commons to invite writers to create those new articles. Imho a plant that has an image on Commons should have an article too.
Adding red links to the separate list seems entirely appropriate to me. Finetooth (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
History
  • " at the summer solstice of June 21, the Sun rises exactly from Lake Iguaque..." – I think you need to say explicitly where the observer is standing to see this effect; i.e., "as seen from El Infiernito, the Sun rises...".
True, I have added the location; the solar observatory itself.
  • "A similar site in the Muisca astronomy was the location where the Spanish conquistadors built the precursor to the under the early Colombian government..." – Word or words missing?
That's right, added "church".
The sentence still does not make sense to me. It reads, "A similar site in the Muisca astronomy was the location where the Spanish conquistadors built the precursor church to the under the early Colombian government constructed Catedral Basílica Metropolitana de la Inmaculada Concepción." – Perhaps "The Spanish conquistadors built a church, a precursor of the Catedral Basilica Metropolitana de la Inmaculad Concepción, at a similar site in the Eastern Hills"? Or have I misunderstood something? Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish built their churches at sites where the indigenous Muisca celebrated their religious festivities. It was a way to replace the original Muisca religion and to submit the "primitive" indigenous peoples to the new rule. I think I've reworded it, but if it's still unclear I can rewrite. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I took the liberty of making another small edit here. Please revert or alter if you think of a better way to put it. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "...after the deadliest of the conquest expeditions of advanced pre-Columbian civilisations. More than 80% of his soldiers did not survive..." – Deadliest for whom? If we consider the deaths of the conquered, was this expedition the deadliest?
It was explained in the next sentence but added the Spanish for clarification.
Thanks. I re-arranged the prose a bit for clarity. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Muisca Confederation
  • I notice that some of the links around words like "agriculture" and "salt" are what's known as Easter-egg links that take readers to an unexpected place. The MOS guidelines suggest avoiding links like this. Finetooth (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The link to Nemocón was to indicate the important salt mining town, now replaced with a link to the mining of the Muisca. In some future a separate article about the salt extraction of the Muisca should be made, as it was their important characteristic.

I've also removed quite some links to minor topics that should have articles (are notable), but not the main ones. The main articles, of which the geological formations are in preparation, still have red links. Added another that I am preparing too. Thank you for the comments, compliments and thorough review! Have a great day, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I made quite a few minor copyediting changes today. Feel free to revert any that you think are mistakes. I will probably have more, but I'm getting too cross-eyed to continue just now. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Founding Ceremony of the Nation[edit]

Nominator(s): 如沐西风(RúMùXīFēng) (talk) , Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a very well known painting (in certain parts of the world) with a fascinating history. Few paintings have been buffeted so often or so dramatically by the winds of political change while in the final analysis, remaining more or less the same.Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It certainly has a fascinating history, and am delighted to see this here, both from an art historical and social political point of view. I met this at PR, need to read through again before casting a vote. In terms of the former bent, I don't like kitsch or cheap sentimentality, which aesthetically is what this amounts to, but have a long interest in Mao's bleak approach to the arts, which this page details and services very well. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

An interesting subject both artistically and historically. I made some edits (revert or modify as appropriate), and have just a few comments/questions:

  • Since Mao, etc., were leaders of the Communist Party of China, and the painting concerns an event of special meaning to the Party (not just any ideological communists), shouldn't 'communist' be 'Communist' in most/all cases in this article?
  • "Dong was commissioned to present a visual representation ..." The use of 'present' and 'representation' give this a repetitive air. Perhaps an alternative could be used for 'present', such as 'create' or 'paint'.
  • "Although Dong later complained that never in his career had he been allowed to create the painting that was uppermost in his mind ..." I'm not sure I understand what this means. Is this in reference to the changes to this painting suggested by other artists, as mentioned later in the article? Or did he desire to paint some other subject that was forbidden? Or some other meaning?
  • The fact that the new flag flies over the people is mentioned twice under "Subject and composition" (in the first and third paragraphs). It seems redundant; similar elements, such as the lanterns, are mentioned once.
  • The quote, "seeing it as a testament to the young nation's evolving identity and growing confidence", is given a refnote, but not attributed to anyone in the main text.
  • Alt text for images would be helpful.

Overall this is looking really good. --RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. All done except the alt text. Due to past experience, I don't think I do alt text well and prefer to leave that for others.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose. The alt text is desirable, but not a content guideline, so not a reason by itself to oppose. I may take a crack at adding it later. --RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that, and thank you for your understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments (Brianboulton): I've been looking for a suitable vehicle for a limited return to FAC reviewing after months of enforced absence, and this looks just the ticket – short(ish), historically and artistically significant, and well-prepared. I am confining my comments to where I feel competent – questions of style, clarity and MoS observance etc. Nothing major, I'm sure.

  • Lead and Background
  • I am dubious about the hyphen in "most-reproduced"
  • There is a question of inconsistency of style when you refer to "the Chinese artist Dong Xiwen.." but later, in the Background section, to "arts official Wang Yeqiu" and later to "Deputy Minister of Culture Zhou Yang" before returning again to "the art critic and official Jiang Feng". With or without the is equally acceptable, but I think we should be consistent in what form we use.
  • Note: this issue has not been addressed – what have you decided to do? Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Very sorry, thought I had.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Subject and techniques
  • "...and in the distance is represented the nation of China...": It is not clear to me from this, how the nation of China is being represented in the painting.
The green belt you see, I imagine. The source is not specific, but what else could it be?
  • OK, but you could elaborate the text slightly: ""...and in the distance is represented the nation of China in the form of a green and fertile plain..." or some such wording. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I can go as far as green, even though it's not stated explicitly in the source, it's what surrounds the city walls, which is what is being talked about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Likewise when I read: "Mao ... faces Qianmen, aligning himself along Beijing's North-South Axis, symbolizing his authority" I am not clear why this alignment is thought to symbolise Mao's authority.
That's a bit more difficult. We don't seem to have good coverage on that. I've added "old imperial" but beyond that I'd have to add a footnote as the explanation would slow down the prose.
  • Composition
  • "He used sawdust..." – pronoun requires defining. I'd probably combine these two short sentences into: "Dong used sawdust to enhance the texture of the carpet on which Mao stands,[11] and painted the marble railing..." etc
  • Reception and prominence
  • "about it" in first line is redundant
  • Later history
  • "given its popularity" → "given the painting's popularity"
  • What is the nature of a "rural cadre school"?
  • A redundant "as well" occurs towards the end of the fifth paragraph.

Those are my meagre offerings. I look forward to adding support later. Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done or responded to all those things. I is a delight to see you back. FAC is not the same without you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy with the minor prose changes you've made at my request and see no reason for withholding support. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for your review and support. Very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:PRCFounding.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Founding_Ceremony_original.jpeg is missing a copyright tag
  • File:Tiananmen_beijing_Panorama.jpg: what is the PRC tag meant to apply to? The image is claimed as own work and China has freedom of panorama
  • There are four different images with FURs that state "To show the reader the subject of the article (one of two versions of the painting)" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
All fixed or in one case deleted. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources review: I haven't spot-checked. All ext links are working, all formating seems to be consistent and correct, and the sources themselves appear to be of the required quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Capella[edit]

Nominator(s): Lithopsian (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort with a few folks involved, Spacepotato brought it to GA-hood and I have tried to buff it with Lithopsian. We think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

looks fine so far Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "observers north of 44°N. its name meaning": ?
whoops/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "it and Capella were situated rather close to each other": How many light-years apart? Or were they only close as viewed from Earth?
the latter. Does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It helps. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Capella was seen as a portent of rain in classical times.": In what way?
source doesn't clarify. presumably though the star appeared just before a regular rainy season and ancient observers (falsely) suspected causation... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Are readers likely to infer that meaning, or any particular meaning, from your text? I leave the question with you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "apparently detected and confirmed an X-ray source": Why apparently?
good point/removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 723": Typo? Just checking.
Not a typo. 723 arc-seconds. Does it need clarifying? Linking? This unit occurs quite a few times and units tend to be abbreviated except possibly for the first occurrence. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I was just checking if it was a typo. You don't usually see 723 arcseconds, for the same reason that you generally don't see a time interval measured as "723 seconds". - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "A 2016 measurement gives the magnitude different between the two stars at 700nm as 0.00 ± 0.1.": I don't follow. "magnitude difference", maybe?
Yes, a typo. Corrected. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • References 10, 27 and 59 are showing stray square brackets and should be fixed.
all tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Reference 84 has missing }
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 86 has no English translation of title.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 84 & 86 use different way to indicate language to other entries.
both tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Line-of-sight links via optical double, but does not go to a useful point in the article.
that article is a mess. Need to rejig target article before finding somewhere to link to. frustrating... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've snuck "line-of-sight" into the lead of double star which seems like a quick way to satisfy readers that they've reached the right place. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a teaser about differences in isotope abundances, but there is no detail. This would be a missing knowledge in the article.
added a footnote but need to sleep as should get another sentence to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The footnote covers what I was referring to. The differences indicate the more advanced evolution of the primary. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Also there is nothing about elemental composition and how it compares to the sun etc. Are there any molecules in the spectrum?
not seen any molecules mentioned. Metallicity similar to our Sun. Will write after sleeping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about heavy element abundances. There isn't anything striking about them, other than the already-mentioned differences between the two giants. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Haedi is not a useful link, dropping you in at the top of the constellation.
Now linked to Auriga (constellation)#Eclipsing_binary_stars Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

linked to dynamical parallax Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • chandra Links to the Wrong subject.
linked to Chandra X-ray Observatory now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speckle imaging could do with a link.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In "In traditional Chinese astronomy" the name is given in four forms, traditional, simplified, pinyin and English translation. This ia a bit undue. We can do without the simplified characters, as they are an anachronism. People that can actually read Chinese can go to the Cinese language article if they cannot cope with traditional characters. After all the native scripts for Macedonian or Indian laguages are not included.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I can still see "五车" in there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That one removed also. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've used that destination. There seems to be little on the Boorong, even to make a stub. 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ancient Balts deserve a link to make it clear who/where they were.
linked to Balts as (a) there is no subarticle and (b) it isn't clear from the original article about the age Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 62 and 63 are dupicates.
unified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 82 is a translation, so it should probably say so in the template J F is the translator. Reference 83 is the same work untranslated, but author name is different to 82, and the language, Latin, is not indicated.
added all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent space between initials in references, eg 26 vs 28. I believe the MOS says to put a space.
I've always had no space - I can't se the bit where it says use a space. So have streamlined to unspaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
See MOS:INITIALS. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
sigh...ok then...will do....all done I think.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
added some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
all linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
When I look at the diffs you have not been using the template parameters, it should be for example author-link1=Dorrit Hoffleit and author-link2 = Noah Brosch. etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Think I've got them all fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • All the images need to have alt= text added for those using text readers
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have now checked all the wiki links. We should convert the see also section to a one or two sentences summarising the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
yes - that has been tricky given the obscure nature of most of the fictional material. Still, I found two that are discussed in secondary sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I took a quick pass through the text and found a few issues.

  • There no discussion of the tidal evolution of this system, and no mention of the detached state of the orbit throughout their respective evolution. I.e. was there a Roche lobe overflow? No, according to Torres et al (2011).
added note - wasn't sure whether to move stuff up to that section about more massive star's maximum radius as a red giant, which is currently further down the page... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Components section may be confusing since it is using the same notation for different units. At a minimum, I'd suggest using the HTML &prime; (′) and &Prime; (″) for the angular notation.
I spelled out feet and inches to avoid confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is some inconsistency about capitalizing 'Sun'.
capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The article should mention that the rotational velocities are projected, not the actual equatorial velocities. You can't directly compare them without know the respective inclinations of their polar axes.
I mentioned this where relevant. It is somewhat unimportant for this star given the known rotational periods. The inclinations and absolute rotational velocities are also known. Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • How were the rotational periods derived? I'm assuming from measuring periodic variability of their surface activity.
Directly measured in the same way as the orbital motions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "700 nm": it should indicate this is a wavelength.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The first use of 'metallicity' in the article body should be linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have another look later for more. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • and cooled and swollen away from the main sequence — I don't like the conflation of a physical move with a classification move
how about "off"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I re-worded again, in a way that I think avoids any implication of physical motion. Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 25-inch telescope — conversion?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I put this in a {{convert}} template, which gives quite a different cm value. Lithopsian (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • United Kingdom and Scandinavia, most of France, Canada and the northernmost United States— A bit selective to have only N America and western Europe. I would think that Finland, Germany, the Baltic states and Russia have at least as good a claim as France
Not sure how the non-anglophone countries got in there. Have just left the ones mentioned in the source. Folks can always click on the 44th Parallel too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
All looks OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Waiting (2015 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 release starring Kalki Koechlin and Naseeruddin Shah. The article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and a Peer Review and has been stable since. Looking forward to the comments. NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks a lot! All your edits are always appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
  • The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for being the wonderful person that you are. XD NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the compliment :) Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

I like the article. Short but sweet. I have a few comments:

  • Kiwi singer-songwriter -> Seems a bit odd to use the nickname; I'd prefer New Zealander
  • and she shares her disappointment with her friends and followers on social media for having abandoned her. -> not clear to me what abandoned refers to
its not the easiest thing to put in words, but in the scene she feels let down by the fact that despite of having such a huge of no "friends" on social media she is at a lonely stage.
  • not sure if email is the preferred spelling of e-mail, but you should probably choose one
  • In an interview with The Hindu, Koechlin revealed that before the actual shoot began -> would this sentence not fit better in the previous section?
  • last paragraph of Filming and post-production is largely quotes. I don't think they all have to be quotes, could be rewritten
  • This sentiment was echoed by a reviewer for Koimoi -> this makes it sound as if it's just a user review, not written by a staff member
  • The Marketing and release section also relies too heavily on quotes methinks
  • praised the cinematography -> that's 3 times praised in short succession, maybe rephrase?
  • the script was "dignified [and] without any false notes", and the film "manages -> that's past tense and present tense in one

Spot check references

  • ref #2 links to another page with no reference to Waiting
  • ref # 6 does refer to James being an anesthesiologist, but doesn't confirm "fellow London Film School alumnus"

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: Tweaked the prose, and hopefully fixed everything. Looking at the refs now.. NumerounovedantTalk 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: Done. NumerounovedantTalk 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. Gets my support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Homeworld[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Claiming the title as the best strategy video game and best computer game of 1999, Homeworld is considered a classic of the genre for a single innovation: it was the first strategy game that was fully 3D, in the sense that units were not restricted to a plane like the ground, but could move anywhere within a sphere of space. Connecting the levels together so that the same plucky fighter ship from level 1 could end up leading a formation against a capital ship 6 levels later was the icing on the cake, and it's no surprise that when the rights came up for auction they were snapped up immediately. I rewrote this article from the ground up this past Fall, and it passed GA then; I've done some cleaning and archiving and polishing since, and I think it's ready to go for FA. Thank you all for reviewing, and I hope reading this makes someone hear "Adagio for Strings" in their heads once again. --PresN 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • So, I pulled up the Homeworld soundtrack on YouTube ... and found it in my Favorites folder ... I didn't recall that it was from Homeworld, I just remembered it as my favorite version of the piece.
  • "was also highly reviewed": Roughly speaking, when doing prose reviews at FAC, I stay away from word usage problems, or at least the kind that people like to argue about. This is a close call; I haven't seen much support for "highly reviewed" in the sense of "highly rated", and it might even be a grammar problem rather than a usage problem. But if you think the usage is arguable, then I'll let other reviewers weigh in on that (or not). - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Did some research, and I think there's a problem of the appearance of suspect grammar. That outweighs usage questions, I think. I'll change it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting, and please check my changes. These are my edits. I think the greater appeal of this game helps the article become more appealing as well, and the writing is (mostly) easy to follow, which isn't always easy to accomplish in VG articles. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What's there is very good, but I think the article has to fail on comprehensiveness grounds due to the very small development section that really offers no insights into how the game was made. At the very least there must have been magazine articles at the time that offered previews with quotes from the development team. If you can prove me wrong, I will withdraw the objection, but I would still be hesitant to support, as I do feel a video game FA requires more in this area. Indrian (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Indrian: Tracked down some previews and added about 2.5 paragraphs to development; you're right, that was a pretty big miss- the ones that had the good previews with interview quotes were also the ones that don't have an extant web presence any more. I tend to forget about the magazines that didn't end up on the web, and it bit me here. --PresN 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @PresN:That looks much better. Consider my objection withdrawn. I will conduct a more formal review in the near future. Indrian (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there's any new information in these, but I found a preview from PC Gamer US and one in this issue of Computer Gaming World. Hope these are useful! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, unfortunately- I'd already seen those, and the CGW one is just a description of gameplay (which isn't changed from the final version, so no good there), while the PCG one at least has quotes from Garden, except it's just gameplay descriptions again, not design choices/development information. They're what I usually expect from previews, in other words (actually a preview, not a development interview), which is partially why I didn't think to search really hard for them in the first place. Will need to do that if I ever try to take Dungeon Siege to FAC, it came out around the same year. Thanks for looking though! Glad to see you still poking around. --PresN 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem—I just wish they'd been more help. And yeah, I still check Wikipedia every day, even if I rarely edit. Feel free to hit me up for scans any time you might need them! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Operation Grandslam[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Operation Grandslam, a UN peacekeeping operation undertaken in the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (presently the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1962–1963 to suppress the secessionist State of Katanga. This little-discussed episode formed a part of the Congo Crisis, a tense moment in the Cold War. The operation is unusual in the sense that it, in spite of being a "peacekeeping" action, involved thousands of soldiers and included a UN air raid on a rebel air base. This article extends beyond the purely military aspects of the conflict and showcases an interesting moment in international and Congolese affairs as UN member states debated over what courses of action to take while the Congo struggled to rebuild. Though marking the end of a formal secession movement, insurgency continued to be a large problem in the region until October 2016. This article has passed both a GA review and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. I have extensively researched this topic and developed this article to a point where I believe it qualifies for FA status. At this point, the only improvements I can make are those suggested to me be others. Considering that I have already had such reviews conducted, there is no further step for me to make but to nominate this article for featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. In my view this is a clear pass. The article is well-written in that the prose is simple and never tries to do too much. The structure is logical. The sourcing is of a high standard; I did limited spot-checking of the early parts of the article. I made some minor wording changes myself, which I hope are correct. I then had the following two very minor points which I raise here only because I hesitated before dealing with them myself:

  • "Shortly thereafter South Kasai and the State of Katanga declared independence from the central government."” – As far as I’m aware, one secedes from a country, not from a government.
  • "Peacekeeping contingents from Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Sweden, and Tunisia were officially earmarked to carry out Operation Grandslam." – earmarked by whom? (The passive voice here doesn’t work well on this occasion). Also, “officially” seems unnecessary, as does "publicly" in "publicly announced" later on in the article.

Those points are nowhere near consequential enough to delay me from marking my review as a support. Syek88 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Response: - I think I've addressed these criticisms. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. As an aside, concerning this edit, I agree with Dank. The term "damages" does not have a generic meaning; it has only a specific meaning in a legal context, namely compensation payable for loss. I think "damage" is correct here. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: - Before any other reviewers proceed, I, the nominator and primary author, feel one point must be drawn to their attention. In the WikiProject Military history A-class review for this article (under my response to HJ Mitchell) the matter of two UN Security Council resolutions were brought up. In the end, I never really got a clear answer on whether to include information about the two resolutions in the article. These resolutions are what gave ONUC the ability to use force against Katanga. I've found no sources that make an explicit connection between these resolutions and Operation Grandslam. I have found a source that makes the connection between those resolutions and Operations Rumpunch, Morthor, and perhaps Unokat, as well as the suppression of the Stanleyville government. I have also found that Dorn and Kille (which, for the record, is a chapter written by Dorn) make implicit and vague references to the resolutions in the context of Grandslam. So, my question is, should I provide information on these two resolutions in the "Background" section of the article? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Some source that might help in drawing a link: pages 244 to 245 of this book, which says quite firmly that Operation Grandslam was the UN making "effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", having previously referred to the 24 November 1961 resolution as "more robust" and "much less ambiguous" than the earlier authorising resolution. That looks rather solid to me. There is also page 72 of this book and page 217 of this book, which aren't as strong. I would think that (a) if there are scholars who say the operation was authorised by UNSC resolutions, and there no significant contrary view, only silence, the article should present that view as fact, and (b) if there is genuine scholarly debate, the article should present that debate. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that, @Syek88:. I have added the info on the security council resolutions to the best of my ability. That's some good stuff you've found, but I'm afraid those sources are somewhat inaccurate. I've come across this issue before. In attempt to put everything into summary style, a number of authors have ended up combining the events of Operation Unokat and Operation Grandslam. This is apparent in Klose (first source you provided) because that sources says that a combined strike force of Swedish, Ethiopian, and Indian aircraft were fielded in Grandslam. We know from Dorn that this is not true, because India and Ethiopia had withdrawn their aircraft by November 1962. Only in Unokat were all three country's air forces operated simultaneously. So when the source says, "It would be another year before the UN made effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", it's in effect whitewashing the whole occurrence of Unokat. I can try and make the connection between Unokat and the second resolution distinct (there are sources that support the relation), but I think in terms of Grandslam I've added all that I can accurately do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds entirely prudent. The authors of the books to which I linked may well be generalist international relations or legal scholars who aren't sufficiently across the facts of the Congo operations. Syek88 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Irish_captives_in_Katanga_1961.PNG: when/where was this first published? Same with File:United_Nations_peacekeeping_air_forces_in_Congo_-_January_1963.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Response: The first file was uploaded by Katangais, a good fellow here on Wikipedia and on the Commons. However, it does seem they give little info on the source of the image. As such, I've removed it from this article. I've replaced it with a quotebox with a statement by Thant. The second file was a blatant copyright violation and has been removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Simone Russell[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. While her early appearances center around her love triangle with Chad Harris-Crane and her sister Whitney, the character later receives more prominence on the show through her experience coming out as a lesbian to her family, and her relationship with Rae Thomas. The network defended the show's treatment of Simone's sexuality as a serious commentary on the topic. Created by the soap's founder and head writer James E. Reilly, the role was portrayed by three actresses over the course of the show: Lena Cardwell (July 5, 1999 to April 16, 2000), Chrystee Pharris (April 17, 2000 to April 22, 2006), and Cathy Jenéen Doe (July 23, 2004 – September 4, 2007). The character was created as a part of the show's effort to represent a full African-American family and full-realized African-American characters on television.

Her storyline made daytime television history by having the first instance in a soap opera of two women in bed making love. The character is also notable for being daytime TV's first African-American lesbian. At the 17th GLAAD Media Awards, the show won Outstanding Daily Drama for its portrayal of Simone's sexual orientation. The show's representation of LGBT topics, and Cathy Jenéen Doe's performance as Simone, received a mixed response from critics. This is my fourth nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other three were Chad Harris-Crane, the Russell family (Passions), and Eve Russell. I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from 1989
  • Support I didn't notice anything major. Good work. MCMLXXXIX 22:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2

I almost support it but there is one thing that kinda bothers me

  • The storyline section seems a bit in-universe (like "Born in 1983" seems trivial for the casual reader). Couldn't it start with something like "The character debuts in the season x, episode x"? Same with the other paragraphs.

Ping me when you are done, and I will support.Tintor2 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean by this as it is an odd introduction into the "Storylines" section. I have changed it to say that she first appeared in the series premiere. Since Passions is a soap opera, to does not have the season x, episode x format of other shows. The years in the rest of the section, such as "In the summer of 2005" correspond to the episode's air dates to provide a context for when this story arc takes place. I hope this clears things up and let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. So I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment by Syek88

I probably won't review this article, I'm sorry, but I did notice one thing - the article seems to be inconsistent (lead, infobox, body) about whether the Cardwell-Pharris casting change occurred in 2000 or 2001. Syek88 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comment. Another user had changed the years on the article a little bit ago, and I forgot to change everything back. I have fixed this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Carbrera
  • I'll be on and off today so I'll try to leave a few comments here and there throughout the next few days. In the references section, you should only provide links to different publications and website (like Soapcentral) on the first occasion.
  • Thank you for helping with this article; I look forward to your further comments and take your time. There is absolutely no rush with this. I received a note from my previous FACs that the publications and websites actually should be linked for every single reference in the reference section (probably so if a reader is looking at any individual reference they can easily click the appropriate link to find out more about the publication and the work). I am not completely sure on the right way of doing it, but that is just a note that I have received in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Carbrera: Just wondering if you had any further comments about this? Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I don't see anything wrong with the article at all. Great work! Support. Carbrera (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
Support from Jaguar

Support I've just finished reading through this article and couldn't find anything that jumped out at me. I did notice that ref 14 has a typo ("=Variety"), but other than that, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and engaging. Good work! JAGUAR  14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your support. I have fixed the typo. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:CathyJenéenDoePinkTop.jpg: Non-free image, which seems like the correct license for such an image. Using it to show the article topic seems fine for me. The non-free rationale seems to address all aspects of NFCC.

ALT text is ungrammatical. Otherwise all seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support — Well written, comprehensive and admirably no-nonsense. I wanted to comment on the faulty alt text but Jo-Jo Eumerus did it just now to my amusement. Great job! Pavanjandhyala 15:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Everything is in good state with wikilinks and archives. I'll give it a pass.Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Gen. Quon

This looks pretty good. I just have a few points, and if they are resolved/explained, I'd be more than happy to give support for the prose.

  • The opening sentence features the phrase " which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08." This isn't a major issue, but to me there seems something off about using the 'to' between "1999" and "2007" and then using an endash for the next years. I could be totally off here, but would "1999–2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08" work?
  • That makes sense to me. I agree that consistency is always the best way to go, and I have made the adjustments. I have been looking at this for so long that I have been overlooking that the entire time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Very good point. I have expanded these in the lead and the body of the article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you need to add access dates to the URLs? I always do by force of habit, but I'm not sure if it's required.
  • I do not need the access dates as everything is archived. I was told in a previous review that if something is archive, then the access date should be removed to avoid padding. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Just let me know.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Gen. Quon: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me now. I Support this nomination.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Just wondering if someone could check the status of my nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from PanagiotiZois
In the lead section shouldn't it say "fully-realized" instead of "full-realized"?
  • Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In the "Casting and creation" section, seeing as you already mentione what NBC stands for in the lead section, I don't think it's necessary to do so again. Also wouldn't it be better to say "made [her] feel loved and appreciated"? Though if you feel it's better the way it is I have no problem.
  • Fixed both points. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Everything seems fines with the "Storyline" section. One question though, it says that Simone's mother Eve panicked when she found out about her sexuality. Was she concerned for her safety or was it out of homophobia. Because later it's stated that Simone went to her for help with Rae. Was Eve by that point accepting?
  • To the best of my understanding, Eve was primarily concerned about her daughter's safety and eventually became more understanding and considerate of her sexuality. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In the "Reception" section I noticed this in the box: "stories of our lives, he says." Is he quoting someone on that?
  • Oops, good catch. That was actually just a tag from the original article and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Other than those minor things, the article is amazing. Not really a surprise though, given that you wrote it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your kind words and your comments. I believe that I have addressed them all. I still have a lot to learn and improve on for this site, but I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hm, do I support this article? "Lesbian request denied." XD Lol just kidding. I fully support this article and its promotion to featured article status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support! Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

William Pūnohu White[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a second go around as recommended by the closing admin of the last nomination after drumming up some interest. Thanks.

Text from my last nomination: "This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure."KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Image review

  • All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

  • I don't understand note 5. What organisation was founded?
  • No libel case was found. I added "libel".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think you mean "found" instead of "founded" then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In May 1893 he organized the native community of Lahaina in removing the pro-annexationist Reverend Adam Pali of Waineʻe Church, who was asked to vacate the pastor's residence owned by church by July 8 I take it you mean he organised the native community, and they petitioned the Church to remove him? What happened here?
  • Clarified a little. Let me know if that is more clear. I am trying to keep the details of the summary short since it is a rather larger part of the article as is.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • supporters of Rev. Pali Delete "Rev."; same with "Judge": use the title only on the first use
  • written with the use English language sources I don't understand this at all.
  • This refers to the conventional versions of Hawaiian history written with the use of English language sources. Added "of". I think that was the problem, correct?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. Insert "and" before "prompted"
  • I don't think that addition make sense. Breaking down the sentence. - The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, [list of things, i. e. plural noun] prompted [verb] the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. - Would it be better to break into two sentences: "The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii. This government would continue to rule until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington."
  • I see the issue. I removed the extra comma before "prompted".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • the morning of the 12th Reformat the date

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Reading now..

White inherited the oratory skills of his Hawaiian ancestor Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I - you've said in the para above he has oratory skills, so no need to mention them again here...and comes over as a bit effusive/puffy.
  • How about: "Born in Lahaina, Maui, of mixed Native Hawaiian and English descent, White was descended from Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I."? There is this important cultural concept call kuleana in Hawaii that attributes ancestral traits and duties to their descendants. Or maybe a synonym instead, maybe?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
he was an Englishman originally from Plymouth or Devon. - umm, Plymouth is in Devon, so needs to be reworded
Change to Plymouth, Devon. One obit said Plymouth and another said Devonshire so I was not sure and included each.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
In 1891 White changed party alliance and joined the National Liberal Party. - I don't know much about Hawaiian politics, but this sentence is just there without any immediate explanation.
How so? It is explained in the following sentences. He became a traveling stump orator/advocate for the new party and the paragraph also explained some key stances of the new party.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Presumably he became an advocate after he had switched - from reading it it doesn't give me an idea of why he switched. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: Still a little confuse here. What do you want me to do here? The sources just indicates he switched political party during the months before this election; it does not state why but generally many of the Hawaiian politicians felt the National Reform Party was too conservative and not Hawaiian enough, so they broke off and form the Liberal Party. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
White reportedly said, "He had always abhorred the idea of a republic," during a meeting of Hui Kālaiʻāina, on December 4, 1892 - it would be quotes and "I had always abhorred.." or he said that he had aways abhorred (without quotes).
I'm quoting the newspaper here. Added that part in there. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd dequote and reword, as as it is written it makes no sense. All you need is a synonym for abhor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
IUser:Dank made an editor to it that I feel fixes the problem without changing any word.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Is the Hawaii Herald mentioned the same one as the predecessor to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald?
No it is not. His paper lasted only a few months. There is no connection.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
After the overthrow, this Hawaiian political group switched its political agenda toward opposing annexation to the United States and restoring Liliʻuokalani - I'd put a "from" x and "to" x WRT agenda
Can you explain this suggestion a bit more? The effort was a local initiative by the local Euro-American community to annex themselves to the US rather than the US being the more active party in which case it would be annexation (efforts) from the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
All you need to do is add a "from (old agenda)" after the "agenda" and before the "toward" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The ending is a nice flourish. Nothing else is jumping out at me at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • support if no-one else thinks the outstanding one is an issue I'll chalk it down to me being obtuse. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • In infobox, "The Honorable". Is this usual for Hawaii legislators? I know there is a consensus not to use the term (though it is proper) for US legislators, but Kingdom of Hawaii differs?
Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • My understanding of infobox practice is that the children should not be listed if they are not notable (and blue-linked) but the number of children should be listed instead. Also, you mention two here, but four are mentioned in the article.
Removed. No exact number are known. His obit listed two surviving children at the time of his death while census records indicate there were at least four..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The various occupations should not be capped except the first one. Sheriff? Really? Based on a 12-day term? Also, politician may be redundant with an officeholder ...
Changed. He was a sheriff during his early life as well before going into politics.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Throughout both legislatures" possibly "throughout the terms of both legislatures"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Serving as a legislator in the legislative assemblies" I might say "Representing Lahaina in the legislative assemblies" which better sets up the "Returning to Lahaina" later in the lede and avoids a near-repetition.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Alongside Joseph Nāwahī, he was a principal author of the proposed 1893 Constitution with Queen Liliʻuokalani. " I imagine both were co-authors with White, but that's not totally clear the way it's phrased.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "White's opponents tried to slander him in the English-language press and to diminish his support among Native Hawaiians by claiming he had tried to incite the people to storm the palace and harm the queen and her ministers." This seems a little long considering we are talking about a period of three days. Can't we just say "White's opponents falsely alleged he had tried to incite the people ..." I imagine the Iolani Palace is meant btw.
These three days are quite significant though. Shorten a bit and add link to Iolani Palace--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "on his home island of Maui" given that you've already said where Lahaina is, I might just say "on Maui"
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • " for running out " slang or cricket?
Synonym for expel.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "his many attempts to win re-elections" should be re-election if, a return to office after an absence would count as such.
This is summarizing his string of electoral defeats between 1902 and 1914..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Some sort of link for the Hawaiian Territorial Legislature should be inserted.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "one of the oldest foreign residents in Hawaii" age or length of residence? And I might say foreign-born
Length of resident. Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jr" missing a dot, to be consistent with "Sr."
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph, you should re-establish that you're talking about the subject of the article.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Did William White have a mother? Is her family worthy of note? Can anything be said about White Jr.? The lack of detail on the parents seems a bit striking considering the depth of coverage of selected male ancestors.
Nothing is known about his mother and only the name of his father is mentioned. I couldn't find anything about either of them..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The long account of the (male) ancestors seems, well, long. Can some of it be omitted? For example the final sentence of the paragraph on White Sr. seems to have no great relevance to Wm. White. except by establishing his paternal grandfather likely wasn't a big influence because he didn't live in the same place as his grandson ...
How? They both lived in Lahaina. And the genealogy is important in Hawaiian culture especially for the half-caste individuals in regards to their Hawaiian ancestors and the ancestors who settled in Hawaii from foreign lands. It also establish the basic information of his family background which is otherwise unknown. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kaiakea" given his service under the king, it seems likely to me that he was Wm. White's great grandfather. Can this be stated?
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Anglican mission boarding institution ran by Archdeacon George Mason in Lahaina. " ran should be run.
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "He was educated with" Since you've mentioned someone else since last mention, I would say "White was educated with"
Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "He initially worked in law enforcement on the island of Hawaii and later became a lawyer and skilled orator." As you later go into all of this, why is this sentence needed?
Removed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Deputy Sheriff Kāmauʻoha was removed from his position for malfeasance and White was appointed his successor as deputy sheriff of North Kohala." deputy sheriff ... deputy sheriff. One should go.
Changed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "strict attention to his duties, as well as his thorough integrity". This needs a cite, as does every quotation. I wonder if you need all that in-lifetime puffery in this and the next quotation.
Changed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "It does not seem like he held this position for long because J. W. Moanauli was listed in 1886 in that post.[18] By 1885, he was living in Hilo where he had begun practicing law." The second sentence seems to obviate the need for the first.
Anyway to retain both? The first sentence explains the list of sheriffs changed to listing another individual in 1886 while he had moved elsewhere sometime before then in 1885. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "One of his other early official posts of note was as an agent to take acknowledgements to instruments on September 12, 1884.[21]" So he was basically a notary public. Is this greatly notable?
I mean one has to start somewhere and this come from his public service office card in the archives which only list this and the times he served as a legislator. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "He later became a member of the Hui Kālaiʻāina (Hawaiian Political Association), a Hawaiian political group founded in 1888 to oppose the Bayonet Constitution and promote Native Hawaiian leadership in the government." I would strike "Hawaiian" from the text as redundant, considering.
  • I strike the second Hawaiian. The first is the accepted translated name while the third use is distinguishing indigenous from non-indigenous groups.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "King Kalākaua's coerced signing of the unpopular Bayonet Constitution of 1887." The year would probably be better off on first mention. Said constitution is referred to as "unpopular" four times. There seems to be a bit of POV.
I removed the extra ones from two of them but retained it for the intro and the paragraph following the "Legislature of 1892–93" section. It was not supported but many in the populace (because of restriction on suffrage) or the two monarchs (because it limited their powers) and the modern-day consensus in secondary sources is that it was an unpopular constitution. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Picking up:
  • I believe the guideline that you don't list non-notable children in the infobox also applies to parents, so I would delete that.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "it failed to pass and was defeated by vote of 24 to 16." I would delete "failed to pass and". An "a" needed before "vote".
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • " to travel around the other islands and canvas for the new party" Shouldn't that be "canvass"?
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Liberal Party advocated for a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution to replace the unpopular Bayonet Constitution and increased Native Hawaiian participation in the government. " to avoid the repetition, I might say "to draft a replacement for the unpopular Bayonet Constitution ..." I would add a "for" before "increased".
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the party soon became was divided between radicals and more conciliatory groups. " some cleanup needed here.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "White and his wife march alongside other legislators and their spouses" marched.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "that was referred to a selected committee." likely the last two words should be select committee.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "economic depression on the islands' sugar industry" likely "in", not "on"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, restore voting rights to economically disenfranchised Native Hawaiians and Asians, and remove the property qualification for suffrage imposed by the Bayonet Constitution" because "economically disenfranchised" is a bit ambiguous, I might say "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, and would remove the property requirement to vote imposed by the Bayonet Constitution, thus restoring voting rights to Native Hawaiians and Asians" or some such.
There was a racial clause to the suffrage in the 1887 constitution which outlawed Asians from the vote outright though, so it was not solely based on property qualification. The sentence is only serving to introduce certain aspects of the proposed constitution and not meant to be exhaustive. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Among the crowds were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina " they are not crowds individually, so I would say "Among them were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina "
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "sympathetic to the Reformer," I'm not sure what the Reformer is.
The Reform Party.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "White remained a royalist and agent to the deposed monarch on Maui" I would add a "the" before "agent" and change "to" to "of"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "asked him to vacate residence owned by church" "the" before "residence" and also before "church", I think.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "who held control of church, " I might say "in physical control of the church"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "the president of the group" "its president" is likely ample.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "stopped the annexationist scheme prompted the Provisional Government" some issue here, I imagine.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "foreigners and natives alike in Maui (with the exception of Hana)" Hana is not a person. Possibly "residents of Hana" or some such.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • " although the genial 'Sam' could change the euphony by adding another terminal vowel to his name." Not sure what this means. If it's a pun on Pua's name, it may be lost on most.
I feel like it should stay.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "for unpaid printing cost of the short-lived paper. " cost should probably be plural
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "to paid" to pay
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "they sent a memorial requesting for the restoration of the monarchy" "for" should likely be deleted.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "established after the Hawaiian Organic Act," likely "under" rather than "after".
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The references at the end of the first paragraph of 1901 legislature are out of order.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The legislative assembly was later mockingly dubbed the "Lady Dog Legislature" because of extensive legislative debate" I would cut "legislative" before "debate" as repetition and not really needed anyway.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The length of the quote at the end of the section may be excessive, especially since it deals with the legislature as a whole, not specifically White.
I feel like it is quite important, though since it provides a modern evaluation about the legislature.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite expecting an easy victory, he was defeated by Republican candidate Charles H. Dickey. " I might cut "despite".
It sounds odd without "despite".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "saw significant loss in the polls" I would change to "lost" and add a comma.
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, it was soon placed on file by the Hawaii Supreme Court," I would change "file" to "hold"
Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "by an act of the following legislative session in 1905." acts are not passed by legislative sessions, but by legislatures.
Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll take a second look once this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Done. Thank you so much for the thorough review. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Support' Well done. I would still mention that nothing is known of his mother and only a few details on father btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the thorough the review. Your help is greatly appreciated. As for the last concern, it just what is available in the published sources. I'm sure that that information may only be known in unpublished oral knowledge by his descendants in Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • I did some editing on this, but the going is rough, and I'm neither supporting nor opposing. I might or might not oppose future nominations, depending on how much work the prose needs on the day the article hits FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS Levant (1758)[edit]

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

An eighteenth century Royal Navy frigate with a solid record as a hunter of French, Spanish and American privateers. Launched in 1758 and in service during both the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, defeating a total of 24 enemy vessels. This article passed GA and MILHIST A-class review last year, and received an FAC mentor review from Nick-D a few weeks ago. After extensive recent tweaking I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. However it's been 712 years since my last FAC, so I apologise in advance for any obvious errors. Comments, suggestions or criticisms welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks

Image review

  • captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Thanks, done.
  • File:USS_Revenge_(1777).jpg: I'm not seeing any evidence that Benson was a Navy employee? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Removed. Will restore if verified or replace if possible, but it's largely decorative so am also happy to leave it out.
      • Question: since John Prentiss Benson died in 1947, shouldn't the painting enter the public domain sometime this year? Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Good point. I think he died in November 1947; absent any other PD reason I'll add this image back in then.

Comments by Ykraps

Just started looking at the sources.Shouldn't the citation for first sentence in the construction section (Levant was an oak-built 28-gun sixth-rate, one of 18 vessels...) be pp.227-231? The oak reference appears on p.229 and the other pages are needed to confirm there were 18 ships.

  • Done. Also added a ref to the table in Gardiner 1992, which handily lists all 18 on the same page.

I can't see where Dull indicates, "Despite the Treaty, Spain delayed the issue of a formal declaration of war" (pp.102-103)

  • Yeah, Dull kind of talks around it by flagging the date of the treaty but not the date of the declaration. I've added a better reference (Hunt 1905), which reads in part: After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12 ... She did not declare war until June 16 in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action." For verification there's an online version of Hunt here - search function doesn't seem to work but the reference is near the top of page 196.
  • I was going to suggest this [[1]] but I think yours is better.--Ykraps (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really an issue, just wondering why the table for captures during the Seven Years' War gives the day and the table for captures during the American Revolutionary War, doesn't.--Ykraps (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Have started to add them in, for consistency if nothing else. Will finish this up shortly.

The sentence "Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1794, and died in 1796" has been referenced using the ODNB but the version I'm looking at [[2]] says he suffered two strokes in 1796 but didn't die until 17 October 1797 (at the home of his nephew). Can you check your source again?--Ykraps (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I can't access odnb from where I am at present, but I checked the University of Michigan ref used elsewhere in the article and it confirms the 1797 death date (also made admiral in 1795, not 1794), as you indicate. Have fixed the date and added UMich as a reference - sorry, I would have used your odnb reference link instead but I cannot open it.
    I didn't mention the promotion because ODNB says he was promoted to rear admiral in 1794 and vice admiral in 1795, so I thought, "promoted to admiral in 1794" was okay. If you want to use it, the citation is - Lester, Malcom (2008). "Murray, George (1741–1797)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . I think you need a subscription or a UK library card to access so that's probably why the link didn't work. Or use the sources you have. Whatever you think best.--Ykraps (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Done - I re-added the ODNB ref per the above, for the date of appointment as rear-admiral in 1794, and also kept UMich as a slightly more accessible source for date of death in 1797.

Source review - Sources appear reliable and of suitable quality. I have checked all those available to me for accuracy and copyright violation. Where I have been unable to access the source, I have tried to corroborate using my own (with varying degrees of success). With references I couldn't check I've AGF, having been satisfied with everything else I have seen. Some examples below:

Text in article: Captain Murray's orders were to join a Mediterranean squadron under the overall command of Captain Robert Mann, which was tasked with intercepting merchant vessels suspected of supplying American rebels. While at sea, Murray also took the opportunity to train his crew in seamanship and battle techniques, in preparation for future enemy engagement.

Text in source: ... the ship travelled as part of the Mediterranean fleet under the command of Rear Admiral Robert Mann...Early entries of the log book contain some description of pursuing and halting ships from England and America (one from Pennsylvania and one from Maryland). Other ships encountered by the Levant hailed from Amsterdam, Genoa, Martinique, Cádiz, Jamaica, and Antigua. The author also described exercising the ship's guns and practicing tactical fleet formations (forming a line of battle abreast, a line of battle ahead, and the bow and quarter).

Text in article: In March 1776 she anchored in the Bay of Algiers where the Dey received her warmly and provided the crew with supplies including bread, vegetables, and three live sheep.

Text in source: The crew of the Levant also encountered the Dey of Algiers who "sent onboard as a Present 3 live Bullocks of sheep with bread & Vegetables to the ship comp'y." (March 7, 1776)

Text in article: Her erstwhile captain, George Murray, was assigned to command the 30-gun fifth rate frigate HMS Cleopatra; he was promoted to the rank of admiral in 1795, and died in 1797.

Text in source: He later served as captain of the Levant from 1774-1779. In 1780, he was appointed to the frigate Cleopatra……He obtained a promotion to Vice Admiral in 1795……He died on October 17, 1797.

Text in article: On 12 April 1779 Spain signed the Treaty of Aranjuez with France, setting terms for a joint military alliance against Britain. Despite the Treaty Spain delayed the formal declaration of war until June, to give time for better co-ordination of its battle fleet.

Text in sources: .....by the 12 April 1779 Convention of Aranjuez, Spain and France became allies. (Dull) After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting powers should invade England ; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of the English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action. (Hunt)

Text in article: Levant was returned to Portsmouth in early 1775, but put to sea again on 22 June amid the early stages of the American Revolutionary War.

Text in source: Ord: 6.5.1757. K: 6.1757. L: 6.7.1758. C: 17.7.1758-16.6.1759 at Portsmouth............In 1774 under Capt. George Murray; home in 1775, then returned to the Mediterranean 22.6.1775.......

Earwig's Copvio tool returns 36.7% violation unlikely [[3]] The inclusion of this quote increases the count considerably [[4]] --Ykraps (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ykraps: Thanks for the source review, apologies that so many sources are offline, though I find the British Newspaper Archive is well worth the subscription. I do quite like the Gower quote at the end, as the only first-hand perspective on the vessel's career. But if you think it too long please let me know and I will either shorten or remove. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Don't think that a detailed breakdown of the crew is appropriate for the infobox. Remember that it's supposed to be a summary of the basic stats/career of the ship.
    • Done.
  • 18 vessels forming part of the Coventry-class part? Class article says 19 completed, not 18, although the last ships was considerably later than the earlier ones.
    • Done.
  • En-dash is used between ranges of numbers, like page numbers, etc.
    • Done.
  • Link launched, tons burthen (and keel, gun deck and quarterdeck in the infobox)
    • Done except tons burthen which I'm seeing as already linked in the second par of the construction section?
  • she was relocated to Deptford How about returned?
    • Done.
  • Levant was returned to Portsmouth in early 1775 why "was"?
    • Removed.
  • France entered the War why is war capitalized?
    • Fixed.
  • four assistant carpenters an assistant sailmaker comma after carpenters
    • Done.
  • Royal Navy vessels of equivalent size and design to Levant were also capable of carrying up to 20 tons of powder and shot, compared with a standard French capacity of around 10 tons. Royal Navy vessels Don't use "Royal Navy" in close conjunction.
    • Reworded.
  • Be consistent with spacing between p. and page numbers
    • Done.
      • Sadly, the cite newspaper template generates a space between p. and the page numbers. So I think that you're going to have to go back in and add a space for all your other cites to maintain consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • No worries, done.
  • Be consistent about using title case for all books and articles in the citations
    • A quick question re this: I've used title case for all the books, and for the names of the newspaper articles, but I've left the capitalization in the individual newspaper stories as they are in the original (for example Ref 48: "Extract of a letter from Gibraltar .." is the way it is capitalized in the actual newspaper) Should I change these article titles to titlecase as well for consistency?
      • Yes. Newspapers are notoriously inconsistent about capitalization in the article titles. Best to impose consistency on them one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • No problems, done (I think).
          • I only caught one word that needed to be capitalized and I went ahead and did for you.--Sturmvogel 66
            • Thanks.

(talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll start reviewing soon. First thought, could we show an image of a similar ship (Coventry-class frigate?), to give the reader an idea of how this one looked? FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • There's one of HMS Carysfort, which I've added as a test. I suspect I have cropped it too much from the original, visible at Coventry-class frigate. Views welcome on whether that image in its entirety would be a better fit here.
Either way, I think it's a good move. I'll return with other comments. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Admiralty Order" What is this?
  • Anything on why it was named Levant?
  • Some words are not linked at first occurrence outside the into, such as Seven Years War, Royal Navy, American Revolutionary War, and privateers.
  • Since you link other places perhaps also link Bay of Algiers, Bordeaux, Newfoundland, Philadelphia, Antigua, etc.?
  • "where the Dey received her" Perhaps make it clear this was the ruler?
  • "Duchess of Grumont" Why would a French ship have an English name, is it a translation? If so, I'm thinking the original name would be more appropriate.
  • I'm a bit puzzled why much the same text is both quoted in the last section as well as in an adjacent quote-box, but if no one else has brought it up, I guess it's ok.
  • "but played no notable role in the landings or subsequent defeat of French forces at Fort Royal." Not stated explicitly outside the intro, which should not have unique info.

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

Not much from me, just a few nitpicks:

  • I see a number of duplicate links - there's a handy script here you can use to find them easily.
    • Thanks, that's a very handy tool! Done.
  • I believe ranks ought to be omitted after an individual is introduced
  • "...28-gun Coventry-class frigate sixth-rate frigate..." - two issues here: first, frigate is repeated, and it's also a bit of a sea of blue. I might rephrase it to "a 28-gun sixth-rate frigate of the Coventry class..." to break up the links a bit.
    • Done.
  • I assume no work was done between 1763 and 1766?
    • That's right. The April 1763 holes in the hull were sufficiently repaired that she was able to get to Portsmouth without sinking, but there she was essentially abandoned under the dubious watch of a skeleton crew. The fact of a survey in late 1763 suggests some reason to be concerned about her condition, but a) alas the actual content of the survey is not available, and b) there is no record of any money being spent on her at all in these years. She was probably in a sorry state when Captain Keith took her back to the Caribbean in 1766, and I'm mildly surprised she lasted three years there without falling apart. The oak-built frigates like Levant lasted better than the fir-built ones, but this peacetime period would still have been the low point for her condition. This seems supported by the magnitude of the 1770 repairs, which cost more than her original construction thirteen years earlier.
      • I haven't checked Winfield because I'm not near my books at the moment but the Gazette appears to be saying she captured four vessels in February 1765 [[5]].--Ykraps (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Hm. Suspect this is a reference to vessels captured before 1763, but only paid out as prizes in 1764. But even then I cannot find any other reference in Winfield, Clowes or the Newspaper Archive to any of these vessels? I can find one reference to Superbe as being captured by Echo (Laforey's ship before Levant), plus a Leeds Intelligencer article of Dec 12 1764 which lists the crews of Levant and Echo together in announcing prize monies. lists the crews of Levant and Echo together for receipt of prize money. Makes me wonder if Laforey brought his crew with him at time of the transfer, hence a payout to Levant's 1764 crew for prizes taken when they were all still in Echo.But that's supposition.
On dates, if these were captured byLevant (ie if this article is accurate) then they weren't in 1765 (gazette is Dec 1764?) and I reckon they were pre-1763 given Winfield puts Levant out of service at that time. Not unusual for prizes to be paid out well after time, as you know. Especially if they were captured in the Caribbean and not home waters. Will have a hunt about for anything that supports the Gazette mention; if I can't find anything will note this single and annoyingly contradictory source in the text. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, my mistake, the Gazette clearly says "That they will be paid their respective shares thereof, at the King's Arms on Tower-Hill, as follows.." so yes, captured before and the date refers to when the prize money was to be given out.--Ykraps (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
If you're interested, I discovered other captures while cross-referencing sources in the Gazette: The recapture of Nine Colliers (5 August 1779), a French xebec (Eclair ) taken 31 March 1779 and another French ship (Theses) on 14 March 1779. The last two were taken while in the company of Enterprize.[[6]] And what appears to be the capture of Conquerant by Emerald on 19 November 1760 while in the company of Levant.[[7]] Just a suggestion but you could include in a footnote, "The London Gazette reports.....but these captures are not recorded in Winfield, etc.....". But I leave it to you entirely.--Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC) (sorry for hijacking your comments section, Parsecboy)
  • Why is the quotation from Gower repeated in the prose and the box? Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The quote seemed a bit long to include in its entirety in the text, but happy to do so to avoid the duplication.

Clare Stevenson[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been a long time coming. I took the article, on the first commander of an Australian women's military service, through MilHist A-Class Review back in 2009. It was (I believe) the project's first A-Class article about a woman. If it succeeds here, it'll be the first -- long overdue -- FA on a woman in the military biography category. I had planned to wait a while between ACR and FAC to see if any new sources turned up but little has so I think we have as comprehensive a picture of her life and career as can be expected and, besides, eight years is time enough. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Suppport Comments from Syek88[edit]

I've had a series of read-throughs of this article, including against select sources, and have very little in the way of suggestions. I think it is very well written: it has a natural flow that must have been very difficult to achieve given the extent to which material has been cobbled together from very thin sources. The second paragraph of "Early challenges" is a particularly good read.

It is both disappointing that the existing biographical material on Stevenson is so limited, yet so satisfying that here on Wikipedia we (you) have been able to fix that as best as possible. Also, the article also does an excellent job of outlining the discrimination Stevenson and her colleagues faced without bludgeoning the reader with commentary (cf Stephens and Isaacs, who do not mince words).

I have checked what sources I can. The Thomson source appears to be the most significant one not available for public access.

My only suggestions:

  • ”By the end of the war a total of 27,000 women had served in the WAAAF, comprising thirty-one per cent of Air Force ground staff and filling sixty-one trades, all previously occupied by men.” I don’t think the source fully supports this. In Stephens & Isaacs the 61 and 31(.5)% figures date not to the end of the war but to July 1944. I’m not sure this is trivial because much could have changed between July 1944 and the end of the war. It wouldn't be surprising if the number 61 increased substantially.
    • Appreciate you taking the time to spotcheck sources -- you're quite right, the text as I had it was making an assumption not explicitly supported by the source, so I've reworded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ”Stevenson obtained a Bachelor of Education degree from the University of Melbourne in 1948.” Is “degree” necessary? I told you I was scraping the bottom of the barrel for comments.
    • Have to admit I'm used to seeing the word "degree" in there -- could we see if any other reviewers comment on it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest having the dates of her tenure as Director in the lead. It's the most important thing she did, and the casual reader might want to know that information without having to read down the page.
    • Agree, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Regards Syek88 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words and comments -- I'll try to look at these in the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure. There is nothing in the second point, so I'm marking this as (a very easy) support. Syek88 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Whew, it only occurred to me after I nominated that I hadn't checked/updated the image links and licences since 2009, so glad I caught 'em before you reviewed -- tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Tks as always Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • Are there any more details available for "Although keen to support the war effort in some capacity, she demurred"? To demur can mean anything from privately expressing unwillingness to a friend to writing a letter requesting the withdrawal of the nomination; it would be nice to know where on the spectrum her reaction fell.
    • I can probably flesh that out a little.
  • Bell's resignation rather than "report to someone from outside the service fraternity" makes me wonder if anything can be said about the relationship between the two women once Bell rejoined the service? If Bell rarely interacted with Stevenson then the question isn't relevant, of course.
    • Since I wrote Bell's WP bio, which of necessity isn't as detailed as Stevenson's, I suspect I'd have picked up if there was relevant info and added it to their articles. I'll check again when I look at sources re. the previous point.
  • Might be an Australian English thing, but "Stevenson considered housing, uniforms, and recruit training as her first priorities" would read better to me as "to be her first priorities".
    • Whether it's OzEng or not, happy to use your wording, Mike.
  • "She drew on her retail experience to organise the WAAAF and to design its uniform": I would assume some uniform was already in place, so shouldn't this be "redesign"?
    • I think Nick-D has access to the ref for that -- Nick, would you mind double-checking?
  • Suggest linking Air Member for Personnel (Australia).
    • Okay.
  • Did she have a successor as Director, or was the post left vacant in the knowledge that the WAAAF would soon be disbanded?
    • I believe she did have a successor, briefly -- will check and add as appropriate.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for stopping by, Mikle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

All sources look to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited, with the small quibble that one of the books cited has a 13 digit ISBN and the rest have 10. I'd use the ISBN converter to change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, probably comes from the age of the article, as I tended to only use 10-digit ISBNs back in the day -- will look at converting. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a torpedo boat that was built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1913–1914, and served under their flag in WWI. She was transferred to the new Yugoslav state after the war, and saw service with them until Yugoslavia entered WWII, when she was captured by the Italians. She was later captured from them by the Germans and saw service with them or the puppet Croatian state until she was sunk in February 1945. This article has been significantly expanded in the last couple of months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, with a prose suggestion:
"Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1914" Perhaps "Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat of the Austro-Hungarian navy, which was built in 1914." -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, with a slight modification. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Cape sparrow[edit]

Nominator(s): —innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this article is a comprehensive resource on the species that meets all the featured article criteria. —innotata 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's support[edit]

A few now, more to come when I get back from work.

  • For a sparrow, the Cape sparrow is brightly coloured and distinctive, I would suggest it is striking rather than colourfull
  • In behaviour; Away from humans it is nomadic, and forms flocks of up to 200 birds. Away from settled areas perhaps?

I'll have a more comprehensive read through later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Done —innotata
  • Do you want to include the weight range? 17-38g according to HBW.
  • Maybe calls instead of vocalisations?
  • Loxia or Fringilla, - might it be helpful for casual readers if we had common names, crossbills and finches, after the genus names?
    • When the Cape sparrow was classified in Loxia, that genus name didn't exclusively refer to crossbills, so I think that would be more confusing. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • as a member of the genus Passer. and also to make it clear that by being in this genus it's in the old world sparrow family? It's family is mentioned in the lead but should be mentioned here too
    • Edited —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported how on Earth did they meet?
    • Sudan golden sparrows are fairly popular pets. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • including holes as well as open locations. seems redundant, just put a semicolon and jump to trees.
  • Cape sparrows are among the main hosts of brood parasitism by the dideric cuckoo,[15] and have been recorded parasitising others of the same species.[28] I think the cuckoo needs to be qualified that it's the main within the sparrow's range (it probably isn't the main host in Kenya) and the second part could make it clearer that it's referring to intraspecific parasitism.
  • Not an actionable comment, but why on Earth is it on a CAR stamp?
    • Presumably it's one of those countries that puts random stuff on their stamps to sell to collectors. Done all the rest so far. —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, this is all good. Fix the above (or explain why you won't) and we're done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Since I GA reviewed this, I may return later if the FAC stalls, to give a new opinion. Until then, I can say the images look fine, all are user-made or from Flickr, with appropriate licences. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have one suggestion, the image under Relationships with humans seems rather bland, and it even seems to be slightly out of focus. Why not use a more interesting image, such as one of these?[8][9][10]
    • Done, moved it up though. —innotata 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I thought this looked like FA quality when I GA reviewed it, so I have little more to add. But there was one issue where you said details were in a paper you couldn't access, perhaps it would be worth getting those papers now? To answer why it "has a low reproductive success in more built-up areas". FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to make sure it didn't drown in other comments, did you see the point above, Innotata? FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The main paper in question is from the proceedings of the 19th IOC in 1988; if I remember right, my school's library doesn't have the complete proceedings. Now, I'd say it's not absolutely needed, though, since Summers-Smith covers its findings well: it found later breeding times, smaller clutch sizes, and consequently lower overall reproductive success in more urban/built-up areas, and attributes this to "suboptimum habitat" insufficiently similar to its wild, grassland habitat. It doesn't seem that this or any other sources have gotten any deeper into the weeds about why this difference was seen. —innotata 00:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - still looks good, note that inaccessible sources can often be received through the WP:Resource request. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley[edit]

I will start with some quick comments, like I usually do:

  • In the lead, the term "granivorous" should be explained.
    • changed to eats seeds —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What is a nomadic flock? Please explain the term, again in the lead.
  • Probably should add a comma after "breeding" in the sentence "A typical clutch contains three or four eggs, and both parents are involved in breeding from nest building to feeding young."
  • It might be good to add a comma after "plumage" in the sentence "A medium-sized sparrow at 14–16 centimetres (5.5–6.3 in), it has distinctive plumage including large pale head stripes."
    • Done these three —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the last sentence, it would be good to add how it is categorized as least concern, instead of just "not threatened". Also, it would be good to split the sentence into two parts, one about its IUCN status, and one about how the population isn't decreasing significantly.
    • Removed IUCN status from the lead —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you re-add the IUCN status? It is pretty standard (as in really standard) to have the IUCN status in the lead, at least for bird FAs. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't really care either way for LC species; added it. —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:ACRO, IUCN should be expanded at its first occurrence.
    • Done —innotata 03:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now, good luck! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

More:

  • Why is the taxonomy after the description? It is generally standard to have the taxonomy before the description. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Either works, since those sections define what the species is; I think it makes more sense to put the description first, since that's a more fundamental definition, and the taxonomy if informed by physical attributes. Bird and other animal articles are pretty mixed on which goes first, and all the other sparrow articles have description first. —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Innotata: Sorry about this, but I will stop the review. If you want an explanation, I made the essay User:RileyBugz/On retirement. The gist of it is if I have too many commitments in an online community, the likelihood of me retiring increases. This, unfortunately, seems to be one to many FAC reviews. Sorry, again. Hopefully you are ok with this. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I remember this, a smart bird Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • male Cape sparrow has some bold black— repeat of species name seems unnecessary
  • cheerup, chip cheerup.[7][4]—refs in wrong order
  • transcribed—overworked in the calls paragraph
  • Miocene —time range would be helpful here
  • but these habits are not important sources of food—"habits" seems redundant
  • and the Sudan golden sparrow have been reported—clarify that these are escapes
    • Done these —innotata 18:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Any known predators, parasites or diseases? There is at least this as a parasite, and you may be able to find something for a local raptor, although that's often tricky to RS, even when it's "obvious".
    • I've done some pretty thorough searches for cites on predators, and didn't find anything specific enough. I'll add something from the source you linked. —innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine,changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I'm fine with your tweaks, you're on the right track. For instance, I changed "when X when Y" (not grammatical) to "when X and Y" ... I wasn't wild about the result, but I'm not trying to get my favorite wording, I'm only trying to make minimal changes to fix things that are problematic or don't have consensus. So, tweak away. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That's what I figured; thanks for looking through and noticing these problem phrasings! —innotata 02:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Source review I checked book ref 3 and web pages 9,18,27 and 28. In each case the the stated fact was an accurate reflection of the clearly RS source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Tks Jim, can you also comment on ref reliability and formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Fade Out[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book series The Fade Out by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips. It was promoted to GA status in Sept 2013 and has been stable since then. I recently updated it to include information on the hardcover edition. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Cover_to_Fade_Out_1.jpg: FUR needs work - for example, "n.a" parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Per comment below, a second image has been added to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The FUR of the first will need updating to reflect that, and as with the first the second will need its "na" parameters filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've read through a couple of times and made one minor tweak; can't find anything wrong with the prose. Short, concise, and clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88[edit]

I think this is very well-written. Tight, focused, and easy to read.

My only comment is about comprehensiveness. I make the comment tentatively because I have never read a comic book in my life and don't want to barge in here and start tanking a candidacy with ill-informed criticisms.

After reading the article a few times I was left wondering "how was this series illustrated? What do the comics actually look like?" At the bottom of "Development" there is a sentence or two on digital illustration tools, and a couple of reviews talk about Phillips' illustrations. But what we don't have is a section of the article that puts these things into context. Nothing explains the style of illustration, which would extend from graphic portrayal of characters to font of texts. The Featured Article Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book has two paragraphs (under "Style and themes") dedicated to these questions.

Just a comment at this stage for the purpose of discussion. Syek88 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. There won't be a large amount of citable information about Phillips' style in The Fade Out in part because it looks like every other comic he's drawn for the last decade, but I may be able to find more on the topic. Alternatively, would including a panel or two adequately address your concern? Using the bottom left panel from this image would show the artwork, lettering, and the colorist's effects. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Ideally we would have both image and text, the latter being Wikipedia's primary method of communication and the former being a helpful option. But I take your point about there not being much referenceable information, at least specific to this comic. Maybe it would be possible to shoehorn into the article something general about Phillips' style? But it would probably be better for me to leave this to your judgement and support however you choose to do it. The image you have suggested is certainly very good and we might not need much if any text to supplement it. Syek88 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I have added the image to the reception section to accompany the reviewer's comments on the artwork. I considered putting in Development near the part about how Phillips drew it, but I thought it might be too close to the infobox to look nice. I will look for citable discussions about his style, but it may take a few days. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Morihei Ueshiba[edit]

Nominator(s): Yunshui  13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Japanese martial artist who founded the art of aikido. I've been working on it on-and-off for a couple of years now, and reckon that it's as good as I'm going to get it without outside input. Yunshui  13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1921.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Morihei-ueshiba-c1918.jpg, File:Onisaburo_Deguchi_2.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1922.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_1939.jpg, File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, File:Takeda_Sokaku.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Original publication dates for these images are basically impossible to come by - all have been reproduced in a wide range of sources over the years. The subject matter, however, clearly shows that they were originally taken prior to 1946 (thus meeting the requirements of Japan-PD), with the exception of File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, which (again, based on the subject matter) is also old enough to be PD in Japan - though in this case it's slightly less certain, and I'm happy to remove this image if it's a stumbling block. Yunshui  08:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The {{PD-1996}} tag requires that it was published before a certain date, as well as being PD in Japan before 1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I certainly can't be sure it was PD in Japan in 1996 (indeed, it very likely wasn't) so I've removed that image. Thanks for picking up on that. Yunshui  10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Were the others published early enough to meet both requirements? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
All taken prior to 1946, thus PD in Japan in 1969 (prior to 1996) and thus PD in the US; so yes, the others should all meet both requirements. Yunshui  12:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, just to clarify: they were all published (not just created) early enough? Can we add earlier publications to the image descriptions? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Like I said above, the actual publication dates are impossible to ascertain - these images have been so widely circulated that their origins are lost in the mists of time. However, {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} requires that the image ... was published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946. Since these pictures could not have been taken after 1946 (given that they show Ueshiba during the 1920s and 30s), they comply with the PD requirements. Yunshui  09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
In Japan. For US, {{PD-URAA}} requires it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice. If we can't demonstrate a pre-1978 publication, and we don't know the first publication, we can't meet that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
My mistake; I was reading the PD-URAA as having or criteria rather than and. Well that's this FA fucked then. There's no way I can prove original publication date for these images, as I've said, and removing them instantly negates FA?#3. I guess you'd best mark this as a quick fail. All that work down the drain... Yunshui  08:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we show any publication before 1978, even if it wasn't the original? Failing that, could alternatives be found, or could one or more images have a fair-use claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to anything from Japane pre-1978 that contains these images (they largely existed in private collections), and there are no free alternatives that I can prove were published before this date. Fair use wouldn't apply, because free imagesdo exist, I just have no way of proving that they are free. Yunshui  13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If we can't prove they're free, we assume they're non-free - and so fair use could potentially be applied, if we can't prove that any image is free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's like picking a scab; despite dewatchlisting this page I still find myself checking in on it... I've uploaded a new portrait under FU guidelines, though I'm still not sure that FU applies. Anyway, it's in the article now, at least until the next review! Yunshui  09:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've also added a location map to highlight the various places he lived (should be no problems with that, since it uses the standard Japanese location map) and a photo of Ueshiba with some students which is correctly licenced via OTRS (I've also checked the OTRS ticket; it uses the standard text). One could make an argument that the presence of Ueshiba in this image (which is indisputably free) negates the FU rationale for the main image; my personal opinion is that the group image isn't of sufficient resolution to provide an accurate "visual identification of the person in question". I've scaled a cropped version up to infobox size off-wiki, and it's just a messy blur of pixels, totally unsuitable for the top of a biography. Yunshui  11:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Also added: File:Aiki Jinja.JPG (public domain image taken and released by uploader). @Nikkimaria:, would you mind offering your take on these images? Yunshui  10:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
All current images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and comphrehensive article. I have done the biographical part of the article—which amounts to the bulk of it—and thought I should write down my comments now, before proceeding to the remainder. I made some minor edits myself. I hope they work.

You will see from these comments that I don't have much to say. Most are minor; perhaps the least so is my niggling concern about the academic credibility of the so-called "Aikido Journal", which is invoked as a reference on several occasions.

  • It would be useful to have a brief, even half-sentence, explanation of the "Shrine Consolidation Policy". The name doesn’t tell us much, and if Ueshiba was involved in opposing it, an explanation is relevant to the article.
Good point - I've gone one better and created a stub article for the topic, which is now linked from this article.
  • "Leaving most of his possessions to Sokaku..." – use “Takeda” for consistency given the previous paragraph mentions him frequently?
fixed
  • The Aikido Journal is labelled a journal, but it is clearly not in the academic sense, and I'm not immediately convinced of its academic credibility for Featured Article purposes.
see below
  • The Wikipedia article for Shūmei Ōkawa does not support the statement that he was a war criminal; the article says that his trial was aborted on the ground of mental illness.
removed
  • "Ōmoto-kyō priests still oversee the Aiki-jinja Taisai ceremony..." This is the first mention of this ceremony, and goes over the head of the reader unfamiliar with the term "Aiki-jinja Taisai".
On reflection, that bit (which has never set well either there or in the Iwama section) is really rather trivial. I'm going to excise it altogether.
  • Is there any reason for Ueshida’s permanent move to Tokyo in 1927? The article gives no explanation, which is peculiar given his reluctance to go there just months earlier and his desire to return to Akabe so quickly.
This I haven't fixed yet, but I'll get my books out later and try and expand on the reasons for the move.
  • "In his later years, he was regarded as very kind and gentle as a rule, but there are also stories of terrifying scoldings delivered to his students." – This general statement of character does not seem to be attributed to a reference. The reference cited for the subsequent sentence supports only the individual example of one form of scolding (which does not seem particularly terrifying).
I'm taking this bit out as well; it was in the article long before I got my hands on it and has never to my knowledge been sourced.
  • Many occasions of the word "however" are unnecessary, especially the two occasions in which it appears in consecutive sentences (grating on the reader).
I hadn't realised how much I overuse that word. I have now expunged about half of the instances of it's use in the article, however...
  • "Takeda Sokaku" – the use of diacritics in his surname is inconsistent.
fixed

I also note some dispute at Talk:Morihei_Ueshiba#Kisshomaru_vs_Stevens about the use of John Stevens as a reference. Some comment on that would be appreciated. I did not have the impression that the reference was being used to support anything outlandish. It seems that the outlandish claims in the article have been deleted since 2014, but I would appreciate reassurance that Stevens is not so off-base that he should be ignored entirely. Syek88 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this thorough review. I've addressed most of the points you've raised above (and will do some more work once I have some books to hand). With regards to the sources, Aikido Journal is, as you say, not an academic journal, despite the name. Originally Aiki News, it was a periodical and later website published by Stanley Pranin, who is widely regarded in aikido circles as the most prominent historian of the martial art. Most of his work is ostensibly self-published, it's true, but if you were to ask any aikidoka for the foremost source on aikido's history, Pranin would be the first name to spring to mind.
John Stevens is the most well-known translator of Ueshiba's work into English, and has been published by at least two mainstream publishing houses that I know of, so he is easier to pass off as a reliable source. His biographical work is generally no more more outlandish than Kisshomaru Ueshiba's (who also repeats the claims of bullet-dodging, accidental-person-carrying, tree-uprooting and so on). I've left these out since almost without exception they are reported in the sources as either hearsay or Ueshiba's own recollections (which, given how patently barking he was, may not have been entirely reliable). Yunshui  09:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for these replies. The new article on Jinja seirei is a great idea (my only minor question now being whether "Shrine Consolidation Policy" is better as a common noun). I'm tending to think that the Aikido Journal and Stevens fall into similar categories: sources from within the world of Aikido. In an ideal world we would have two or three detailed biographies written about Ueshida by credible academics from outside the Aikido world. But we don't. The next best thing to do is to be as judicious as possible in the manner in which high-quality sources from within the Aikido world are used. I'm satisfied that has been done here. The best I can probably do, given that I have not been reviewing Featured Articles for long, is to flag the issue for whoever does the source review. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My second tranche of comments now. I don't think the "Development of aikido" section is quite up to the same (very high) standard as the biography. Looking at the history of the article I can perhaps see why: it has been there for a lot longer, and improvement efforts since 2014 have focused on the biography:

I had previously recommended not to expand this section overly since Aikido itself is a Featured Article and covers this.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I certainly concur with not expanding the section; I don't think expansion would be appropriate at all. If anything, I'd be open either to reducing its size or the more radical step of amalgamating the relevant parts of it with the biography. Syek88 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "It is unusual among the martial arts for its heavy emphasis on protecting the opponent and on spiritual and social development." - I can't see the book referenced, but the suggestion that either of these characteristics is "unusual" appears quite stark, and the book referenced does seem to be an Aikido source. Unless the source were fully independent, it might be best to state the two characteristics without the comparison with other martial arts.
  • The "spiritual awakening" language leaves me a little uneasy. This sentence in particular: "Ueshiba developed aikido after experiencing three instances of spiritual awakening." It might be better to say something like "Ueshida described three spiritual experiences that led him to develop aikido." In that way, the article avoids any implication that it is verifying that these experiences took place or that they amounted to "spiritual awakenings". I would say the same about the reference to "spiritual enlightenment" in the lead of the article.
  • "The technical curriculum of aikido was undoubtedly most greatly influenced by the teachings of Takeda Sōkaku." - the passive voice plus double-adverb doesn't read very well.
  • "The early form of training under Ueshiba was noticeably different from later forms of aikido..." - There are a number of aspects of this paragraph that I'm unable to trace to the Green & Svinth source cited. The paragraph has been in the article for a very long time. It started off uncited at all.
  • "As Ueshiba grew older, more skilled, and more spiritual in his outlook, his art also changed and became softer and more circular." - what does "more circular" mean?
More circular means less direct - would the latter work.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It still sails over my head a bit... Syek88 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To the lead - "It is now practiced in many countries around the world." - "in many countries" could be superfluous?

I think that's likely to be it from me. Thanks again. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Development of aikido" bit was, as you say, part of the article that I'd done very little with. I've now reordered it, changed some of the wording per your suggestions above, and added a few more sources. Thanks for giving me the impetus to sort it out a bit! Yunshui  10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've had another couple of read-throughs of that section and I'm now marking my review down as a support. I have one point for other reviewers and the FAC delegates: the point I raised above about the extent to which the article relies upon sources, such as Stevens and the Aikido Journal, which are written by Aikido followers (if that is the correct term). I didn't feel qualified to comment further upon this issue and its relevance to the Featured Article criteria in this case. Syek88 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

This is an unfamiliar topic for me, please excuse silly questions ;)

Infobox

  • Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?
  • "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

Lead

  • Do I have to know what a dojo is?
  • "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

Early

  • "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.
  • "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

Ayabe

  • "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.
  • "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?
  • "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

Awama

  • I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

Students

  • I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

Interesting article, thank you! I only looked at the prose, simply trust that you used your many sources well. I'd like more images, but understand that in FAC time, every new image is a new problem ;) - If you also want to look at an unfamiliar topic: I have a FAC open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the kind words, Gerda, but as Nikkimaria has established above, there is literally no way for this topic to ever become a Featured article (it's impossible to include suitable images that comply with the PD requirements, and you can't have an FA without images). As such, I'm no longer trying to make FA improvements; in fact the whole process has left such a bitter taste in my mouth that frankly I think I'll just dewatchlist it and go do something else. Yunshui  13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Pity - are the images really that much of a problem. I had thought they were acceptable but admit to being totally confused with the jargon.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That is saddening. I'll alert a commons admin, who solved my last image license problems, - often it's just a missing license. My expert for FAC image problems is RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be great. Going through the FA process can be full of roadblocks which on the face of it are insurmountable. Help would be appreciated.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm back here, I figure I should address Gerda's points:

  • Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?

I think this is relevant; since his other children had some influence on history (Matsuo by marrying Nakakura (the one-time inheritor of Ueshiba's martial art) and Kisshomaru by being the actual inheritor) it seems reasonable to indicate why the other two did not.

  • "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

How big a can of worms would you like to open? The problem is, adding a selection of students in the infobox could easily seem to elevate them above the others mentioned in the article body - cue edit warring as readers try to make sure their teacher/lineage head gets included at the top of the page... Even if we restricted it only to students who developed their own schools of aikido, you'd still have ten or so names in the box. To my mind, a link to the table of notable students is still the best way to do this and still keep both a stable article and a reasonably-proportioned infobox.

  • Do I have to know what a dojo is?

It would probably help, I've wikilinked the term.

  • "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

That was rather clumsy wording, you're right; I've restructured the sentence to make it more readable.

  • "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.

Changed this to make the subject of each sentence clear.

  • "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

More clumsiness on my part; rewritten for clarity.

  • "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.

God idea, done.

  • "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?

Not a lot; it's now gone.

  • "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

The debate over whether he was teaching aikido at this point is a long one (I think the name would have been Ueshiba-ryu Aiki-jujutsu around that time), so I've removed the term (and improved the sentence structure as a result).

  • I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

By all accounts it didn't actually have much influence on him - he was in a pretty remote, rural part of Japan and was largely self-sufficient. The only major effect of the war on him was the prohibition on martial arts by the occupying forces - which Ueshiba ignored anyway! I'll have a dig around to see if there's more to say on the subject (the Iwama section is quite short compared to the others and I'd like to flesh it out if I can), but most histories seem to agree that Ueshiba's day-to-day life wasn't particularly impacted by the war.

  • I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

I haven't made any change on this as yet; I'm going to have a think about what information needs to be in there and how best to organise it.
Many thanks Gerda for your suggestions (especially the bits that needed rewording; very much obliged for those!). Yunshui  11:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I like what you did, and am close to supporting. I was always told that a link from the infobox to below in the same article was a no-no, - how about a separate little article "List of students ..."? Which would also remove the appearance of the table from FA consideration. We made Franz Kafka works, when the list got too long ;) - The infobox could link to it, as Beethoven's to his list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Gerda, that's a bloody genius idea! I've always hated that table - changing that section into a paragraph or two on his relationships with his students and the international spread of aikido would be much better. I'm strapped for time right now, but I plan to do some more work on this tomorrow, so I'll implement this change then. Thank you so much for this solution! Yunshui  15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
What I've actually ended up doing is modifying the existing article List of aikidoka to include this information (since almost every student was already listed there) and deleting the table. I'll have a rummage through my books and see if I can flesh that section out a bit. Yunshui  08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
And on further consideration: I've now incorporated the content of that section into "Development of aikido", since it seems more relevant there. Yunshui  08:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I like what you did! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

CMLL World Lightweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship known under various names over the years.I brought this to GA level last year and put more work into it, making updates based on successful FA Nominations of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship, CMLL World Middleweight Championship and CMLL World Heavyweight Championship articles. This is also currently part of a Featured Topic candidate at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships/archive1. I hope you will find this a high quality article and know that I am always open to suggestions and modifications to make this an even better article. Thank you in advance for your participation.  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose on prose

  • MPJ-DK, I recommend finding a co-nominator. I'm glad you're bringing Lucha Libre articles to FAC, I'm glad you've had a lot of success with that, but there are too many big, obvious problems here. We don't want to burn out reviewers, forcing them to do work that you could have done and should have done before FAC. A few examples:
  • "During Máscara Dorada reign with the title": In normal speech, informal writing, and formal writing, no one says "Dorada reign". (Everyone makes typos of course, but you have to check for typos before you nominate at FAC, it's not our job to fix those.)
  • "the name was changed to be": No one says "the light was changed to be green" or "he changed the name of his hair style to be a mohawk".
  • "native Japanese wrestlers On February 27, 1999, they held a one night tournament": ?
  • "making the first time in the history of CMLL": Did you mean "making it the first time in the history of CMLL"?
  • "Mexican Ricky Marvin ... exchanged the title": Leaving the "the" off is just wrong. After the "the" is added, then people can argue over the best ways to present nationalities.
  • "Jr..": No..
  • Like I say ... I'd like to see more of these articles. The first or second time someone comes to FAC, if they're having a hard time, I hold off on criticizing. You've been here often enough that I don't think I'm out of line asking you to either do the work yourself before FAC, or if you don't want to or are having problems, find a co-nominator who is interested in Lucha Libre and is willing to get these articles up to FAC standards before FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: If anyone thinks I'm being too hard-nosed here, I'm always open to input. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Dank from my perspective you are fine, pointing out legitimate issues and a firm, but not unfair kick in my complacency ;-) and looking at the article again I see it and the need to tighten up a few things in my approach to FA. I would like to put a couple of hours of work into this and tue ask for your honest opinion on where it is at Quality wise. So no worries about harshness, I did not in any way take offense to your comments. Side note, I also appreciate the input on burning out reviewers - I wonder if that is part of the reasons my FACs don't always attract reviewers? I do appreciate the honesty, otherwise I would not be pushed to improve, which is the whole reason for me doung the FAC thing.  MPJ-DK  18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. The part I review at FAC is prose ... and not even the tough prose problems, I just handle the straightforward stuff. So I can't really tell you how close you are to the finish line. Several people have given you extensive reviews for past FACs. Ask them ... and if they don't see much work to do, then fine. If they do see work to do, ask them if they'd like to co-nominate Lucha Libre articles at FAC so they can get some recognition for all the time they're putting in. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
        • So I have taken a much needed pass at the article again, there were several embarrassing issues in it that really should not have been present in a FAC. Dank I would like your honest opinion on the level now, not necessarily a detailed feedback more of your take on if it's even worth pursuing FAC for this article right now.  MPJ-DK  00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I finished this up, and I can support it on prose now. I might or might not oppose future articles, depending on how much work there is to do when they hit FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that Dank and thank you even more for your edits to the article - it has really helped bring up the quality of the writing. I've already decided that I need to either co-nominate or at least have a second/third set of eyes on the article prior to even nominating for FAC, I want to deliver a higher level of quality right off the bat and I have some work to do on my own.  MPJ-DK  02:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
      • One more thing ... a previous reviewer recommended mentioning and linking kayfabe. I agree in principle, although that article is a mess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
        • That article is such a fancrufty mess I almost hate sending any reader in that direction.  MPJ-DK  21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Donkey Kong 64[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This 1999 video game marked the decline of the adventure platform genre. "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre", Electronic Gaming Monthly wrote, "Donkey Kong 64 sucked it all out". But you couldn't infer that from the lionizing 1999 press. Interesting enough, today's game journalists remember the game's 1999 reception as "mixed" even as Metacritic called it "universal acclaim". Reading the original reviews, almost all mentioned the nagging backtracking for collectibles, but only one reviewer (GameFan) went so far as to call it (as retrospective reviewers do) a deal breaker: "a big bloated project with not enough brilliant moments to justify the numbness ... [of] sitting through the whole thing". Indeed, as much as GameFan was an outlier among the 1999 hype men, it had its finger on the game's legacy. The game is not a "recommended" title in the overall Donkey Kong series, but as the console's top seller in the 1999 holiday season and with over two million copies shipped, the game is famous despite how it was sold.

This article is the most complete treatment of the topic on the Internet, and includes a wide range of online and offline sources worked into readable prose. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria, and look forward to your feedback. czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. Always disliked this game, because it had none of the atmosphere of the SNES games, so will be fun if this article can in some way change my opinion... FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha, well, I think it'll do more reinforcing than changing of opinion, unfortunately! czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Some words are not linked at first occurrence outside the intro, including the characters (that have articles), minigame, Rare, etc.
  • I'm not sure whether the design of the console and its components are copyrighted, so I'll leave it and see if it is brought up during image review, but may be a problem.
  • "and avoid consumer confusion,[25] However, according to Rare" Seems the first comma should be a full stop?
  • "Nintendo said that it bundled the accessory with the game to simplify its installation and avoid consumer confusion", "Additionally, Nintendo said that the choice to bundle, rather than selling the accessory separately, would avoid consumer confusion." Seems like the same information repeated?
  • "The game released in November 1999" Was released?
  • "as Nintendo fought off the new Sega Dreamcast console." This seems a but hyperbolic, and I'm not sure what is meant (did Nintendo win?). "Competed with" might be more neutral?
  • The setting is barren and nondescript at first, and only later introduces lighting effects and richer textures." I think this subjective statement needs clearer attribution.
It's a statement of fact, not interpretation, and it's within the IGN citation segment. I can move a direct citation next to the sentence if necessary, but I didn't think it was needed
The sourcing is fine, I'm just not sure who says this from reading the text, I think you could mention who made this opinion (IGN, it seems). FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, I meant that it isn't an opinion—I see that it's between two opinion statements from IGN but this one is evaluative (like the statements also sourced to the review and used in the Gameplay section). Reception sections can be monotonous "X said Y" affairs, so it's important to diversify the prose. I'm open to rephrase suggestions but I don't think that attributing the statement to the author ("IGN said") clarifies more than it congests in this case. czar 01:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I would have suggested semicolon, but then the combined sentence would be overly long. But if no one else latches onto this, should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It always baffled me that Dixie and Kiddy Kong were not in the game, though they seem to have been replaced by very similar characters for no apparent reason. Any discussion of this in the sources?
As far as I can recall, not at all, or at least no one made a point of it. The closest is that Dixie and Kiddy are "lookalikes" of Tiny and Chunky.[11] (I'd consider this a minor point, in any event.)
Heheh, at least now I know I wasn't the only one who thought this... FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Donkey Kong 64's 3D platforming commonplace by the time of its release" Missing a "was"?
Thanks, @FunkMonk. Addressed this first batch. czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Support - while I may be a bit biased seeing as I contributed a bit to the Development section, it cannot be denied you've done an outstanding job here, especially considering the scaricty of any substantial sources. So yeah, I pretty much agree with the intro claim about the article being the most comprehensive body of information about the subject. Another thing of note is that the prose seems to be concise, well-written and diverse all across the board. All in all, this is exemplary work. You've got my vote for this one. Electroguv (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one comment from Niwi3[edit]

Resolved comment from Niwi3
  • You've picked a poor gameplay screenshot. Try to illustrate a gameplay mechanic or show a good perspective with the player character in the center of the screen. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3, do you have a suggested shot? It illustrates typical gameplay, shows some environmental distance, which few other shots have. I looked at alternatives, such as those printed in the original reviews, and would have used them if they were significantly more illustrative. I considered a shot with the special ability pad/swap barrel, but those concepts could be adequately explained in the text, so the image is for illustration of how the character plays in the environment. Also the player-character is rarely in the center of the screen when the character is in motion, so not sure that tip is instructive—it illustrates more that the character is frequently not in the center of the screen (which helps lead the camera to see what's ahead). czar 15:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: you can find many good screenshots here. This one, for example, is better to illustrate typical gameplay and environmental distance. You can also use this one to explain that players can climb up trees and swing from vine to vine. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the screenshot with the first one you recommended—it has a little extra draw distance of the original scene, but it also has the benefit of being an emulated rendering (and thus, sharper). czar 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:DonkeyKong64CoverArt.jpg: Non-free cover art, which seems like the appropriate license to me. Non-free use rationale appears to satisfy all requirements.
  • File:Dk64 jungle.jpg: Non-free screenshot, which seems like the appropriate license to me. NFCC#8 rationale is a bit generic, may want to specify what it is used to illustrate.
  • File:Nintendo-64-Memory-Expansion-Pak.jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Good EXIF, no indication of impropriety.
  • File:Jungle green Nintendo 64 (10448842084).jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Image is from Flickr, no evidence of copying in GIS.
  • File:Grant Kirkhope.png: Free image on Commons. Dependent on OTRS and hasn't been processed yet apparently. Image is of the composer and is discussed in the adjacent section.

All images appear to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Amargasaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A spectacular dinosaur from Argentina. We feel the article is ready to be nominated now, and are looking forward for comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

Wow, a dinosaur from my country. Good work with it. I'll give you a quick support but I recommend removing the red link. From my experience, they are not approved by guidelines. Also, if you have the time, could take a look at my own FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D.Gray-man/archive1, and provide some comments? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I started reading your article, but I have absolutely no idea about the subject, so I have to see if I will have any comments to share. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

Giving this one a non-expert reading.

General:

  • You should provide alt text for the images.
done
  • In the references, some titles use sentence case, while others use title case. This should be consistent.
done
  • I recognize that some scientific terminology is needed to accurately describe the anatomy, especially the names of specific bones. And actually a lot of those terms appear to have lay descriptions provided when they are first used. But there seem to be some cases where untranslated professional terminology is used when there are reasonable substitutes that laypeople are more likely to understand. For example, instead of 'anteriormost' can can we not just say 'front' or 'forward'?
done

Description:

  • Since the function of the spines is not clear, the "Life restoration" image is one particular possibility for how they may have appeared, right? The caption should probably note that.
done

Discovery:

  • For those of us less familiar with Argentine geography, perhaps the sentence explaining the location of discovery could start with something general, like "The discovery site is located in southwestern Argentina, in the La Amarga Arroyo..." I know we can click on the links, but a few extra words makes it a less confusing read.
done
  • As mentioned above, I'm glad to see that most of the anatomical terms have links and/or non-technical descriptions. The term 'sacrum' could stand to have these added.
done

I'm about halfway through and need to step away, so I'm posting the comments I have so far. Will return for the back half. --RL0919 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments! Yes, non-expert readings is what we need, making it understandable for lay people is always the difficult part. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Finally coming around for that follow-up read. The prose seems more readable, with explanations provided where needed. I made a few copyedits (and as usual please revert if needed). One final thing I think you should look at it is how multi-author papers are mentioned in the body text. One paper with three authors is called "Tschopp et al.", while another with three authors is "Daniela Schwarz and colleagues". I don't have a preference on this, but it should be consistent. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Great, thank you for your all your comments and copyedits. I removed the "at al.", as I think that "and colleagues" is easier to understand. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose; thanks for your follow-ups. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Great to finally see this here! I'll add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!!
  • I see some words are not linked the first time they are mentioned outside the intro (dicraeosaurid, Dicraeosaurus, Brachytrachelopan, etc.)
done
  • On the other hand, there are some words that are linked more than once in the article body, such as transverse processes, tetrapod, etc.
done
  • "the neck corresponds for 136%" Corresponds to?
done
  • Seems like mix past and present tense in the description ("Greatly elongated spines continue along the last two"), perhaps better to make it consistent throughout?
done
  • "In front of the eye socket, the antorbital fenestra would have been located" This seems a bit non-English, I'd switch the parts around, and remove the comma...
done
  • "(MACN-N 15)" I'd add "specimen" in front of the number.
done
  • "from the Dicraeosauridae" Maybe add "a member of the"?
done
  • has been published in 1991" "Was" instead of "has been" would sound like more correct English.
done
  • "and the recently described Brachytrachelopan", " A recent analysis by Tschopp" I think it is discouraged to write "recent", because this article will probably exist for many years to come, and it will mean little...
done
  • You give authorities in-text for some of the hypotheses in the Paleobiology section, but not for others, perhaps give for all? For example "Apart from the possible function in defense, the spines may had been used for display, either for the intimidation of rivaling conspecifics or for courtship".
done This is a hypothesis proposed by various authors, I added a second citation to make this clear.
  • "Other than those of pelycosaurs" Perhaps say "unlike those of".
done
  • The palobiology section also has a mix of past and present tense.
done
  • "Bailey suggests the spines to represent a scaffold" I'd say "suggested the spines represented a".
done
  • "rather than flatted" Flattened?
done
  • "the formation is famous for the cladotherian mammal" Famous seems a little strong here? "Notable" instead?
done
  • "Crocodylomorphs are present with the" Represented by?
done
  • "Within the Sauropoda, Amargasaurus is closely related to" Most closely related to? Closely seems a bit too definite?
done
  • "they could have supported skin sails or stuck out of the body as solitary structures supporting a keratinous sheath" Maybe reverse the mention of the two hypotheses, so the least supported one is last?
done
  • "dorsal vertebra to the foremost tail vertebrae still were strongly elongated" I think this means the elongation continued to this part, but the "still" makes it a little hard to understand?
done
  • That's about it from me. Good to see you back at FAC!
Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review FunkMonk, it has helped a lot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this looks great to me now. You discuss feeding heights, but perhaps state somewhere that sauropods were herbivorous? Not sure if it's necessary or even stated in the sources, as this is pretty much taken for granted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

I thought I'd have a quick look at the sources - there are a few things that should probably be fixed;

  • novas2009 and wilson2005 - should reference the page numbers using {{rp}} or something similar.
I used rp templates for other articles, but reviewers had reservations, stating that rp templates are "non-standard, and disrupt reading flow". So I stopped using them. There does not seem to be a very good alternative to give page numbers.
  • salgado1992 - has no issue number.
done
  • bonaparte1990 - no page reference
done
  • tschopp2015 - is this not the same reference as TMB2015?
done
  • taylor2005, sereno2007 - blank URL parameter.
done
  • mazzetta1999 - uses both last/first and author parameters.
done

Overall, there is a lack of consistency in the order of parameters used (e.g. ::<ref name="mazzetta1999">{{cite journal|first=|last=|author2=|year=|title=|journal=|volume=|pages=|language=es |issue=}}</ref> vs <ref name="leanza2004">{{Cite journal|doi=|issn=|volume=|issue=|pages=|last1=|first1=|last2=|first2=|last3=|first3=|last4=|first4=|title=|date=|url=}}</ref>) - it would be preferable to use the template parameters in the same order for each template, using, for example, the order given at Template:Cite journal.

This would be quite a nasty thing to do manually. If consistency is desirable here, this could be better implemented in Citation bot or something. I'm not sure if this is issue is urgent for now.
I've standardized all the references Jens Lallensack Yunshui. The only differences now are between the cite book and cite journal formats. IJReid discuss 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

These minor nitpicks shouldn't detract from the fact that the article as a whole is smashing; a really interesting, well-written article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Yunshui  13:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose While the article generally appears well-developed, without specific page numbers for references WP:V isn't met. It simply isn't practical for readers to follow up on the sources here. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Not providing specific page numbers for journal articles is standard for dinosaur and many other science articles. I am afraid that without a standardized technical implementation of specific page numbers (in addition to the obligatory page range for the whole paper), with which everybody is happy, including my fellow editors in the dinosaur project, I can't do anything here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this needs wider discussion then, I've been told in several other FACs that page numbers were not necessary for journal articles, unless they were really long. An example of how this was done before can be seen in for example Heterodontosaurus and Rodrigues starling. I think recent precedents have to be taken into account. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
For journals I reckon the relevant page range is fine; in most cases a journal article is only around ten pages or so - readers could be expected to look through the entire article (or just use Ctrl+F with online versions). For books, the lack of page references is a deal-breaker for me, I'm afraid; Wilson has around 350 page and Novas nearly 500, and that's too large a range to source individual facts in an article. From WP:V: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" - "somewhere in these 350 pages" is not sufficiently precise. If you aren't a fan of {{rp}}, then {{sfn}} might be a usable alternative. Yunshui  09:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible technically to provide exact page numbers for journal articles using the template - provide the full biographical reference in a 'works consulted' or similar section, and then use {{sfn}} or similar for individual references. Alternately, it can be easily done manually. This is standard (indeed, expected) in humanities FAs. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
For the books we need precise page numbers, I absolutely agree, I just forgot – they are added now. The problem remains with long journal articles. I personally would prefer {{rp}} since it is easy. Regarding FunkMonk's suggestion: The problem I see is that, as a reader, you will not get the full citation but only something like "Hume, J. P. (2014). pp. 55–58.", and than have to search for the full citation in the references list by yourself. And regarding {{sfn}}: Well, this is quite complex (two separate reference lists, its much more difficult for other editors to make changes to the article), it perhaps makes little sense if you only have very few citations where you need more precise page ranges. I don't know, I haven't seen a very good solution yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Such a split between two sections is actually easily manageable, and quite common. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, from a quick sample of some recent science-focused FAs it looks like the practice used in this article is fairly common, so I don't think that my position here is sustainable. This strikes me as a very poor practice given Wikipedia's readership (especially the many students who use it as a starting point for their own research), but I'm being unfair by opposing this individual article. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that this is a problem, but I think we first need to discuss this in the dinosaur project, to find a solution which is fine for everybody, so that we have a common approach at least within the project. I will keep an eye on the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would need an even wider discussion than that, as it won't only affect dinosaur articles, but everything sent to FAC that uses journal sources... FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that the source issues I raised have been fixed, and that the article as a whole is a great read, I am happy to Support this nomination. Yunshui  10:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose by Lingzhi[edit]

Oppose per 1c.

  • Page ranges. I don't agree they're OK to skip for journals, unless those journals are perhaps 2 or 3 pages long. Ditto book chapters. I think it was Johnbod who mentioned on WT:FAC that the referencing goals/needs of professional reviewers/publications are different than those of Wikipedia... I listed pages once, and can do so again, but right off the bat I see Upchurch, Barrett, & Dodson (2004) at about 63 or so. Wikipedia's readers are not in the field, and its referencing needs are not the same as readers/authors in the field... I do not think it is unfair to single out one article (see Nick-D, above), because 1) Fixing this is maybe maybe a 2-hour job at most. [NOTE: I gave you a good start here, with all categories and {{good article}} removed because in userspace.]. This is not an undue burden [unless you don't have the sources, at which point it becomes very difficult... do you have all the sources?]. 2) The process needs to start "somewhere".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I added specific page numbers using the rp-template for the longest articles (50+ pages). Would that be a compromise for the time being for this nomination? Let's discuss your suggestion on the FAC discussion page (where you already elaborated on it), I will give an answer there soon.
I replied at length on WT:FAC. Short version, yes of course it would be a compromise, because it does provide page numbers. But I would want to see it applied much more fully. Sources with (arbitrarily choosing a small number) 3 or fewer pages could go without page numbers, as a compromise, but more than (arbitrarily) 3 would need your {{rp}}s. And man, that template output is ugly and confusing. But... it does provide the information in some manner or other. So the answer is "yes, but more often, please."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "weapon both against predators and conspecifics". What does that mean? I went to conspecific and that didn't really clarify the meaning in context, so a wikilink may not be sufficient. Can you please go through and find other obscure or specialized terms like this and amend? You can do it far more readily than I can.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I fixed it. That's why we need reviews: I'm not a native speaker, and sometimes just don't know which terms are daily language and which are more critical for a non-expert audience. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"Basal" could use a footnote. But you don't have a footnote section. I think a wikilink would be insufficiently explanatory. Judgment call.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the nice copyedits! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I have missed it in the discussion above, I think we still need an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

America's 60 Families[edit]

Nominator(s): DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial and pseudo-conspiratorial book by Ferdinand Lundberg which was briefly influential in the late 1930s and has since been cited as an influence by Robert Caro and Ralph Nader. It recently passed GA and has, since, undergone copyediting. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919[edit]

I have not read the book and have only general knowledge of its topic, so these are "lay reader" comments.

  • General:
    • The {{cquote}} template is discouraged for block quotes in articles; the {{quote}} template is preferred.
    • Some sentences are long and express multiple ideas; those could be split up to improve readability. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts "Though praised by" joins a mix of critical opinion with later use in a speech, plus a libel suit, all in one sentence.
    • Are there RS to supply a more complete publishing history? Only the initial publication in 1937 is mentioned, but I see the infobox image is from a 1946 publication.
  • Lead section:
    • "the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company" -- the definite article seems odd there.
    • Since the image in the infobox is not from the first edition, it would be helpful to have a caption saying what publication it is from.
    • Didn't do a full image review, but I did look at the book cover image, and the non-free use rationale for it could be beefed up. You should consider the {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} template as it is pre-written for this use case.
  • Background section:
    • "the latest in a series" -- I assume there was not a literal series of which this is a member, so probably some other wording should be used to indicate that previous books had expressed similar ideas. Also, some information about specifics of those predecessors, such as prominent works/authors and dates, would give more context.
    • Speaking of specifics on the background, the mentions of Myers and Gerard deserve more explanation: who were they (briefly), what are the relevant works that advanced a similar thesis to Lundberg's? Also, the wording of the paragraph seems to imply that that Myers and Gerard were among the "American journalists" who wrote books on this subject, but as far as I can tell from looking at the articles about them, Gerard was never a journalist.
    • More about Lundberg would also be helpful here. What did he do before writing this book? What motivated him to write it?
  • Content section:
    • The first sentence in the section is an example where splitting into two or even three sentences would be an improvement.
    • The block quote from Villard seems longer than it ought to be. The idea of the first two sentences, that the specifics were not new, could be paraphrased. The "quotable" part seems to be the middle portion about how Lundberg brings the material together. The idea at the end, about the risk of others using the book to criticize the US, could also be paraphrased as part of the follow-up discussing the Nazi pamphlet.
    • The first sentence of the Ickes-Jackson subsection is another one that really should be split.
    • Are there really just two individuals to discuss under modern views?
    • Ralph Nader seems a bit tangential to the subject to use a photo of him.
  • Dedication section: Why is this a section? If the dedication is significant, then presumably the article should say who "Franklin M. Watts" was and why Lundberg dedicated the book to him. If it isn't significant, it needn't be mentioned at all, much less as a one-sentence section.

That's all for now; generally this looks like a pretty good article that just needs a bit of polishing. --RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RL0919 -thank you for this very thorough review. I believe I've made all the updates you recommended, but let me know if I've missed something. The one outstanding question of which I'm aware is additional persons to cite in the "modern views" section. I am unaware of anyone in semi-recent times who have referenced this book other than Caro and Nader. It's been out of print more than 50 years so this may not be entirely surprising. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If the subject is not en vogue then so be it. Ideally, if there is an RS that says the book is somewhat forgotten or is only discussed in fringe circles (if that's the case), then a statement to that effect would help reassure readers that the article is not incomplete. Regarding the rest, there are quite a few changes/additions in your edits, so I will do a full re-read later today or tomorrow, and get back to you then. --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Took a bit longer coming back around than I expected, but I've taken another pass. Made some edits, which as always you can change again if I've done anything problematic. I'm not doing full image or source reviews, but a couple of additional suggestions that may help when someone does: You should add alt text for the book cover and the picture of Villard, and you should consider adding locations for the book sources. I'm also still a little concerned about whether there are other sources for more recent reception/legacy. However, since I'm no expert on the topic, I'll stick to what I know and support on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, RL0919! DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88[edit]

I am inclined to doubt that this article, as presently crafted, makes the jump from the Good Article criteria to the Featured Article criteria. That jump could potentially be made as part of this review, although my very first point below would, if actioned, involve a fairly substantial amount of new writing.

The first point is 1b – comprehensiveness. There are three areas in which I am concerned that this is not met:

(1) The book is 500 pages long but summarised in three paragraphs and a quote. I don’t think that is capable of being a comprehensive summary of Lundberg’s thesis. The thesis is conveniently divided into 12 chapters which, if summarised in about a paragraph each, would give us a comprehensive overview of the book without being too long. At the moment, the article does not mention significant portions of the book, including chapters on the press and philanthropy (VII-IX), which in my opinion falls short of what 1b requires.
(2) As mentioned in the earlier review,, there is very little mention of how the book has been perceived in the long-term, other than by two of its avowed fans. Having said that, as you have noted in response to that review, it also appears that post-1940s commentary is very limited. This 2016 book (at 249) refers in passing to the book as “muckracking”, and I doubt that reference is sufficient for inclusion. This 1940 article in Time Magazine might provide for a good perspective, although I cannot work out how to get to the full version through any of my usual databases. It may turn out that this comment (2) is not actionable: we are stuck with the situation of a book that caused a stir at the time and drifted quickly into obscurity, but where we don’t have sources to say explicitly that it drifted into obscurity. Perhaps we have to leave the reader to infer it.
(3) I think the two-paragraph lead is also too short.

My second point is 1a – prose. I concur with the comment above that there are single sentences that are trying to achieve too much. Some examples are:

  • ’An unflattering look at the life and business of the publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst, it ascribed to Hearst what the New York Times would later describe as "fascist political ambitions ... abetted by an unholy alliance of big bankers".’ The length of this sentence produces a syntax problem whereby it reads like the New York Times is using the quoted words itself to describe big bankers.
  • ’...part of what has been described as "a generational moral reaction against the perceived depredations of the monied class".’ This appendage to a long sentence could easily be separated into a separate sentence, thus giving you more freedom to attribute the quote to its author rather than using the loose “has been described as”.

I will re-visit prose later in this review. The prose certainly isn't a long way off Featured Article standard.

Those are the only two criteria that I think raise issues. The article is neutral and well-researched. I am able to vouch for the latter because I looked fairly deeply for post-1940 sources and, as above, could not find many. Syek88 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Some possible sources:

  • This, which I have only glanced at. It seems to be a meta-analysis of the kind of stratification study that the book engages in, and might be useful for placing the book in context.
  • This, which twice refers to Lundberg as a muckraker -- I don't know if Marcus is sufficiently important a scholar for this opinion to be included. It seems to be the George Marcus we have an article on. Of course you already have the epithet in the article, but it might be useful for support.

Searching Google Books for '"Ferdinand Lundberg" -inauthor:lundberg', to get rid of Lundberg's own works, I found more possibles, the first few of which are:

  • Gibson, Donald. Communication, Power, and Media. Discussion starts on p. 11.
  • Byrkit, James. Forging the Copper Collar. Not much content but like Marcus he refers to Lundberg as a muckraker (p. 278).
  • Barlow, Aaron. Depression Era. Appears to be a collection of Depression Era documents, including a passage from the book; I can't see enough to know if there's any actual commentary.
  • Phillips, Kevin. Wealth and Democracy. A couple of minor mentions; Phillips does actually use Lundberg's numbers, so he trusts them, it appears. He also calls him a muckraker.
  • Here's an interesting one. The October 1968 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has an advertisement on page 49 that mentions an article or review that appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times which, according to the advertisement, describes "the tremendous counterattack" that met America's Sixty Families. From the ad I'm guessing this would be a review by Gerald W. Johnson of "The Rich and the Super-Rich". It's possible that there are no specifics in this review, but it would be good to check it out.
  • Janowitz, Morris. The Last Half-Century. I think this is usable: it describes Lundberg's book as having been "discarded as dated, crude, and lacking in sound scholarship", which is a helpfully summative statement. Morris Janowitz seems to be prominent.

Do you have access to newspapers.com? I found some coverage there that might be useful if you haven't already looked at them.

I'm not ready to oppose on comprehensiveness, as these all seem pretty minor, but I'd like to get your take on these sources and whether they can be useful in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

William T. Stearn[edit]

Nominator(s): Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

This article is about a distinguished British botanist. Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) This is the most complete biography of this scientist available to date. In context, there have been only four botanists that have reached FA status to date, and none since 2006. For comparison, they are listed here.

  • Support I had the opportunity to comment on this excellent article before it came here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support A really incredible article. It's recently passed GA so, despite a close inspection, I was unable to find much to critique it on, nor reason to oppose its elevation to FA. Particularly notable here is the exceptionally thorough bibliography. The only issue I see is that there are no ALT tags on the images. With that correction, and resolution of the issues outlined by Nikkimaria, I would entirely support this as a FA. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I am unsure what is intended here, since running the Alt text tool shows that all images have an alt text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear you're right, my apologies. I'm not sure what happened. I had two tabs open simultaneously and I must have pasted the wrong article name when I ran the Alt text tool myself. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
We have all done it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments to Nikkimaria added below --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • 1. File:William_Thomas_Stearn.jpg: suggest {{non-free biog-pic}} rather than current tag
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 2. Images are tending to the tiny side, and see WP:IMGSIZE regarding fixed px sizes
True in principle but I was concerned to make images match text. I allowed image size to float, but the Awards images did travel outside the section - my only recourse therefore was to switch to horizontal. I hope that is ok. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 3. File:Cambridgeshire_High_School_for_Boys_1900.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
That's always an issue - clearly one cannot prove this. Therefore one has to use common sense. The image is a professional one and therefore likely to be taken by an adult. It is highly unlikely that any professional photographer alive in 1900 is still alive in 2017? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I have now identified the author and added it to the file page. It might be a struggle to look for their obituary though.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It is true that the author is certainly now dead, but the issue is whether they were dead 70 years ago - it is quite possible for someone who was an adult in 1900 to still have been alive in 1947. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes I see, obviously very difficult to prove one way or another.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Life expectancy of males in England in 1900 was 47 (Office of National Statistics). So it is "reasonably certain" that an adult male alive in 1900 had died by 1947. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Commons has just finished an RfC that concluded that where author date of death is unknown, we should use creation+120 as a cutoff for life+70 works - although that issue is still under discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
So I see, although there is consideration of a case by case basis. There is a difference between unknown and presumed. A common sense analysis might suggest that it is unlikely anyone owns the copywrite to a photograph taken by a photographer for a Stationary Store that turned it into a postcard in 1900 when it was built. That store is no longer in business. It would be extremely unlikely that it has any commercial value. I see that some of the discussion used the premise that the photographer was at least 20 years old in 1900, as did I.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
An extensive search of the Cambridge archives suggests this is most likely Harry S Driver (1877–1947), although one cannot be 100% certain. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you feel then that this is likely to have been a corporation-owned copyright? If it were held by Driver, life+70 wouldn't apply until the end of the year. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
So it would seem - unless the school that exists on that site now owns the copywrite, since they have used it on a website - I could check. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Letter sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 4. File:GoulandrisMuseum.jpg: see here
Well it is a maybe. But also the author (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu), who is now elderly, has expressly made this public. Did you have any specific suggestions? It strikes me that it falls under "shall be permissible". --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is the architecture, not the photo - the freedom of panorama issue is unclear. Hopefully there are sources available to clarify, or the building is PD otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
So it remains a maybe? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I could discuss it with the Museum staff, since I assume that if FOP is not applicable, the Museum would hold the copywrite and could grant permission for use --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Letter sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 5. File:Medaille-Linnaeus.jpg needs a US PD tag and more information to verify the current tag
Tag added, but I agree we have no source, and although widely used on Wikimedia, I can find no original source. The author is Valérie Chansigaud who has uploaded a lot if images to Commons, but I see some questions have been raised about her license tags. It is possible of course that it is her own work, but I cannot prove it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If you feel that it is unusable, this image is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike CC BY-NC-SA Licence, could be substituted? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately no - see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Non-commercial_licenses. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
But it does say may be used on English Wikipedia? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The artefact was created in 1888 - see discussion under #6 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Licence adjusted to {{PD-1923}} --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 6. File:Order_of_the_North_Star,_Grand_Cross_(Sweden)_-_Fram_Museum.jpg: what is the status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are looking for precisely here. The author made it PD, and is an active contributor of images. I also see many images from this museum on Commons. Is the question what permission did the museum give the author to photograph and reproduce the artifacts? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
My question is, what is the copyright status of the artifact itself, as opposed to the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsure how one could establish that, other than writing to the museum perhaps.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The museum would only hold copyright if they either created the work themselves or had some copyright arrangement with the original copyright holder. In most cases someone who is not the copyright holder donates the artifact; the museum owns it, but not the copyright on its design. It's likely that has now expired, but you'd need to verify when the design originated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The artefact was created in 1748. Does that help? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would mean PD-1923 would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Licence adjusted to {{PD-1923}} --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Up to now I have tended to trust the licensing on Commons. I don't profess to be an expert on image licensing and I am happy to defer to those who are. It seems to me that most of these issues are unresolvable, for instance proving the death date of the of the photographer, or the copywrite status of a museum artefact. The council of perfection I suppose is to delete all images that are disputed? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally, if we cannot be reasonably certain an image is free we should assume it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
So it comes down to a definition of "reasonably certain" --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Issues reduced to 2: Images 3 and 4. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Other reviews[edit]

  • Support A remarkable man, and an outstanding article, well written, extensively cited, clear in his greatness without losing neutrality and elegantly structured. I made a few c-edits, and have one quibble. In Early Years - a new species of Allium (A. farreri Stearn, 1930) - it should be noted that this species was later merged back into another species, by Stearn himself. Still, thank you to all the writers and reviewers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually that last point is discussed in Note h. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so it was. Very good, carry on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we can request a source review (unless I missed one) at WT:FAC now. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Support by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Nary a single page number anywhere? Reason for this?... I'm adding the Oppose (per 1c) here because I suddenly remembered an incident in which a FAC coordinator closed a FAC when I was barely started finding flaws...I don't want the coord to miss my remarks. But I am very open to withdrawing my Oppose if things get straightened out somehow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that for every citation, you want the exact page number in the source that is being referred to? If so that will balloon the reference section, already at 131 entries, considerably. However I will take a look and see to what extent that would make the article any more useful. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Many sources don't have page numbers, because they are web resources (e.g. 1, 3-8). Many are articles, for instance citation 2 is used 22 times and is a 17 page article so that would likely add 17 more lines. Others are very short articles like 9, which has 3 pages, or 10, 18 (1), 15 (2), 17 (4). Others like 19-20 refer to the work as a whole, because it is a publication by the author and pagination is immaterial. So it is a question as whether 1c is actually improved by exact page numbers within articles every time they are mentioned? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Not for sources that don't have page numbers. :-) If there are no page numbers (web source, forex), then of course you do not/cannot add individual page numbers. If an entire journal article is some arbitrarily short length (two pages? three pages?), then you don't need individual page numbers. Beyond that arbitrary minimum, pages are a Good Thing. Wikipedia's referencing needs are not the same as journals in the relevant field. No one's professional reputation is at stake here, and neither readers nor reviewers are necessarily knowledgeable in the relevant field. So... for any source longer than... three pages?... that has numbered pages, page numbers are a good thing.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I will look into examples further. In other situations, eg 23, 25, 28 where books are cited without pagination it is because, they are primary sources, and the secondary sources which are more easily retrieved, are provided, the primary sources being cited for readers wishing to delve more deeply. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(undent)If you're adding something "for readers who want to probe more deeply," then perhaps a footnote would be in order rather than a citation.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been over all the citations carefully, several times, and have added page numbers to references where I believe they would be helpful. Most of the pagination is contained in the bibliography, but the bulk of the citations are to works in their entirety, principally the canon of the subject. As mentioned above I'm not sure it would be helpful to add a page number on each occasion to those articles (principally obituaries and tributes) where nearly every page is cited. I trust this meets your concerns. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Nolo contendere on the page numbers, as per WP:AGF. Oppose stricken. Many of the citation templates etc. are handled in a notably complex and nonstandard manner, e.g., {{cite book|last1=Stearn|first1=W. T.|title=Botanical gardens and botanical literature in the eighteenth century|date=1961|pages=xli–cxl|ref=harv}}, in {{harvtxt|Hunt et al.|1958–1961}} vol. 2 (instead of "|chapter=") and nonstandard cite webs etc. I pity the poor n00b who tries to edit through that kind of tangle. Looking on the bright side, I very seriously doubt that any n00b will do any serious editing to an article about William T. Stearn.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
For that reason in the past I have added helpful comments to the references as a guide to the citation style in use, to encourage uniformity. Actually determining what is "standard" when it comes to WP citation is no easy task. One important point is to at least ensure uniformity. Keeping chapters and multiauthored texts separate has many advantages, particularly in portability. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I agree about keeping chapters and multi-authored texts separate. I was suggesting, forex, that the above should have been something more like my test edits here  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
So I saw. However, I think I will revert, at least pro tem because that is concatenating chapter and text, and duplicates unless one deletes the latter. You will find that in previous articles I avoided any confusion by keeping Chapters in a separate part of the bibliography. The trouble here is that the bibliography is already curated by subject. I will play around with the idea a bit. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Style

(undent) OK then. Waiting for your next word on the subject.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I reorganised the bibliography to make this clearer. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks nicer. I just noticed the footnotes, which I earlier said didn't exist. The refs section is huge & complex. But... what can you do? I think it works.
Optional cosmetic note #1: If you wish, bunched sfns can be consolidated using {{sfnm}}. So all instances similar to this: "the title of his biography of Linnaeus.[17][118][134]" would become more like "the title of his biography of Linnaeus.[108]" (or some number; the enumeration would change). If you find that appealing, I could whip up a thing to do it in a jiffy. But if that doesn't appeal, then the way it is now is fine too.
Optional cosmetic note #2: Wherever you have name/date followed by cites (like "Walters (1992)[17] and Heywood (2002)[2]"), you could use {{harvtxt}}.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Also adding Comments to assist other editors in view of your n00b concerns. More later --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Navigation Comments now in References and Bibliography.
Note 1. I haven't used that template but I have tried to edit articles with bundled references, which were a pain. I can see that cosmetically there are less numbers in the displayed text, but that is offset by longer footnotes which detracts from the advantages of "short" footnotes. I also wonder about ease of maintenance. Know any good examples using this? I might try a test edit.
Tried it. I think it has a place - maybe where there is a natural pairing --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Note 2. Might try a test edit - not sure how often that exists - will check - thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Substituted those two - but seem to be only two examples --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I put a test version with {{sfnm}} in a personal sandbbox page; you can see if you like it. It actually increases the reference count from 143 to 166 by spreading them out; forex "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuPrance 2014" becomes "abcdePrance 2014"... Moreover, " and fields.[2][6][7]" becomes " and fields.[7]" etc.
  • Because it's in userspace, categories and some metadata templates were removed from the bottom of the page, and {{good article}} was removed from the top. I also haven't gone over it with a magnifying glass to look for errors caused by my program... (ah there's an error with Hara et al; fixed it manually).
Obviously I have no objection if you really think it will help. On the other hand clearly I am (1) concerned about introducing errors, and (2) making sure whenever you do this it incorporates any recent edits I have added. I have no idea how your programme works, but I notice that if the intent was to remove multiple citation numbers from the displayed text, then it clearly missed quite a few, or was it based on "more than two" - I had tried to make 3 the limit. While admittedly I don't like seeing 20 letters before a reference, the downside is that it produces a fairly dense Reference section, and it is harder to find things and maintain. Swings and Roundabouts. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's 100% cosmetic. I personally find the multiple boxes[1][2][3] very distracting and annoying when I read – looks cluttered – but many people don't notice or don't care. There is one editor in particular who (among several other things) is well known for explaining at length why he thinks {{sfnm}} is evil.... Ah, there are some multiple citations together because yuo've mixed {{sfn}} with named refs<ref name="Foo" />. I don't believe I'd ever seen that done before, so the possibility hadn't occurred to me. I could program around it, but since it seems to be a special case, it would be better to revise them manually (if desired). The program would use the latest version of the article as its input. I haven't seen any other errors; would check. But again, all is cosmetic and so a matter of choice/taste.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
And that's the problem - it always comes down to personal choices which vary considerably. I looked over a random sample of Biography FAs and its all over the shop - and often not all that well done. The mixture of sfn and <ref> came from a decision at the Plant Project where I wrote most of the style guidance, that sfn|loc=url defeats the purpose of not cluttering wikitext, so those were made <ref>. See Comments at the top of References and Bibliography. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • what does this mean: "particularly when he was younger.this period, also published in the new"
Obviously gobbledygook. I traced it back to a browser crash - which inserted a fragment from a phrase a few paragraphs earlier. Fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • While I was fixing the error my program made with hara et al., I noticed that "An Enumeration of the Flowering Plants of Nepal" is mentioned twice, with different capitalization.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Clearly not ideal - must have happened when earlier block was split into separate sections. I removed the second one. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • why is ""a small man, his pink face topped with a thatch of white hair" a part of his legacy?
  • why is "wumpty" a part of his legacy?
Yes, I scratched my head over that one. A lot of his biographers write about the man - his characteristics and appearance. I tried to minimise such content, fascinating as it was - but hadn't yet come up with a better idea of where to place such references. Any thoughts? (its in legacy right now because that is what people say they remember --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we should just lose the cute pink face. It doesn't seem particularly distinctive (many people can be described similarly). The wumpty could be tossed out or could be kept somewhere, but not kept in Legacy. IMO.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Again I pulled out a random sample of FA bios and checked the project page - no consistency. Walt Disney has a separate section on personality - others put something in Biography, but absolutely no consistency. With a bit of thought I could probably pull together a separate section. But everyone comments on his remarkable personality --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Separate section is OK. Fitting it in somewhere else relevant is OKtoo. But in legacy... maybe a stretch.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I got a small chuckle when I saw Stearn ranked coequal with the Hookers (go ahead, click the link. Unwl.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
I have no idea - it does not seem to have been vandalism, and its been there since the beginning - it does not make sense to wl the surname and fornames. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stafleau isn't British. Drop Stafleau or recast sentence.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't the implication hence the comma - and nor was Linnaeus - but if you think that's how people will read it I will recast --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You can't wl Linnaeus' book as if it offered support for the idea that Stearn was honored for his work on Linnaeus. Unwl.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not following this one since I'm not sure where you are pointing - maybe I will find it amongst your ces. All I can think of is that maybe you are referring to Stearn's edited version of the Linnaean text? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
As I thought - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Am copy editing from the bottom up (as always). Will take time. Revert if/when/where you wish.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I did notice you have been rather busy - maybe I should stay away from it till you have finished --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Right now would be a good time to do your work. I'm probably on the opposite side of the world from you, or at least halfway. Bedtime approaches.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Eastern Canada - And you? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) - Ah, thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Extensive ce reviewed - minor tweaks added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Botanical taxonomy
  • "Stearn played an active part in the ..." perhaps a candidate for the Legacy section. Judgment call... yes, the more I look at it, the more I think it could well be moved.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but on the other hand it also makes more sense to keep subject matter together - maybe add "continuing". legacy implies something posthumous. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Due to the illness of F.J. Chittenden, and through the good offices of Bowles and together with Gilmour" You may wanna consider the possibility that this is inside baseball (metaphor)... I commented it out.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The phrasing could be more felicitous. On the other hand it brings together several major influences on his career - I had to actually write - or considerably upgrade a number of biographies in order to bring them into this article. I will have another look once I have reviewed all the ces. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ditto for "upon the death of then secretary Chittenden"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ditto "again chaired by Camp"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
It may be baseball, but then maybe the article is aimed at baseball players. Those interested in a biography of Stearn are likely to be those interested in the institutions he worked in, the lives of his colleagues over his life, the history of botany, and of UK botanical gardens. These would be arguments for retention of pertinent details as to how these intercept. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "he described its history back to 1864 in his 1952 paper" OK, I commented this one out too, but for a completely different reason, as a completely different kind of case. The other details I commented out (described above) should be deleted outright, in my opinion. They are not about Stearn. This "history to 1864" could be left in because it actually is about Stearn, but it breaks the logic of the passage. I think it should be footnoted. However, there are 3 references directly after it (before my edits, that is). I don't know which one is relevant. I don't know which, if any, should go in the (proposed) footnote. So I punted and commented it out.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
In the end I rewrote the section and tightened it up a bit. Stockholm wasn't an example, it was a tour de force that became a horticultural legend (he passed on a bus trip and drafted the entire code before the others got back). You may notice some patterns here, the wealthy Bowles appears regularly like a fairy godfather guiding our subject to new opportunities, while the unfortunate Chittenden (I wrote a short bio on him) conveniently fell ill and died creating a whole raft of opportunities for the hero of this piece to seize on and make his own. But that's baseball. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Linnaeus
  • Was the his 176-page introduction the text that made Stearn a recognised authority on Linnaeus? That's the way I interpreted that sentence, and my re-write states that much more clearly. But I am double-checking.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Similarly I rewrote this section. Life is never that simple. Yes, it is his best known work on the subject but one becomes an authority based on one's canon. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Botanical history
Also rewritten. I think you will understand that in the end texts look best when written by one person, even though incorporating many of your suggestions.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Later years
  • OK, I'm stuck, so I've reached a pausing point. The section "Later work" originally began "At the Lindley Library (1933–1952)", so I assumed Stearn was there from 1933 to 1952 an rewrote the text to reflect that assumption. But no, he went to India etc... Is the new text ("Stearn wrote steadily while at the Lindley Library between 1933 and 1952") wrong? And.... I haven't read earlier sections closely yet, but they seem overlapping/redundant. Forex "Royal Horticultural Society, London (1933–1952)" covers the same period. You'd think the section earlier in the text would be about his life, but it also mentions of his work. Then we have a section covering the same period but devoted only to his works...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Later years is from 1933 on in contrast to his amateur output while at school and working in the bookstore at Cambridge. You are correct that in general WP biographies tend to separate life, career and output, but it is impossible to completely and surgically place someone's life into compartments. Consequently writing is mentioned only in general terms in the earlier sections. I tried to minimise overlap but also ensure some continuity. Yes I was at the Lindley Library from 1933 to 1952 but like most adult males took a leave of absence during the war while in the Library's employment. The Lindley Library is at the RHS. I'm wondering if some confusion arises from working backwards, unlike (hopefully) the reader?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
General
Now I'm confused. Is this the source review requested by the Coordinator? It seems to me that what started out as a ce, seems to be be becoming a major rewrite, so that each change needs to be looked at in the context of the structure and content of the article as a whole, not just phrase by phrase. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I now need to look at this section by section rather than edit by edit. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This article unquestionably needs a good copy edit to check for wordy, snake-like sentences, broken logic and dangling modifiers. I saw cases of referring to a primary source as evidence that that particular primary source exists (e.g., Smith and Jones wrote a book in 2013 about the Sun{{Smith|Jones|2013}} I'm still waiting to see what we will do about the whole page number thing. But in any event, no matter how lenient we feel we can be with the latter two points, the first is a must. End review. Good luck.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Like Michael Goodyear, I'm a little confused now by the review of Lingzhi. We have a conditional support, but qualified by "needs a good copy edit to check for wordy, snake-like sentences, broken logic and dangling modifiers". This is unhelpful, to be blunt, at this late stage as that does not look like a conditional support, but more of a reason to oppose. Without at least one or two samples, I'm not sure if these points are actionable or reasonable. It is also unhelpful placing it before the comments made earlier, so I've moved it to the end. Another point which is baffling me is that Lingzhi has said that a good copy edit is needed, but has copy-edited himself. It is not clear if this is the requested source review, and if, as seems to be indicated above, this review has resulted in a fairly major re-write, it would be fairly polite to request the opinion of the very experienced reviewers who supported this article before the major copy-edit which the reviewer performed. This needs to be a collaborative process. Jimfbleak, DarjeelingTea, Sabine's Sunbird, Casliber do you have an opinion on the changes made to this article? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

    • @Sarastro1: I called it "Conditional Support" rather than "Weak Oppose" (tho I was tempted to do the latter) because 1) a good copy edit is only an easy request away, and 2) the ref situation is a little contentious. I have already Opposed Amargasaurus, so perhaps more would be overkill... I ceased copy editing. I was very far from finished. The nominator prefers his own writing style. I can find examples of snake-like sentences with dangling modifiers that I altered; but I would think these should be obvious. And asking at least two of those above if the refs are OK is pointless; they are firmly in the "no pages ever!" camp. Does that help you?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry - been away for a few days - to be fair I have accepted 90%+ of the reviewers changes - I just rewrote sections - rafter ce to try and keep style consistent, and also I think I get a tiny bit of deference on familiarity with subject matter. if there are still "dangling modifiers" that the reviewer wants to reword I'm not putting up objections. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Also I'm a bit confused about the reference thing - I have said several times that if the reviewer wants to change everything to {{sfnm}} I'm not objecting. Some examples of reference issues would be helpful. It maybe that someone is implying motive by citation - to add a citation does not always mean - I'm justifying this sentence - in a number of cases it means - and this is the material I'm referring to. I also don't know what spotty citation means - I'm seeking clarity. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To clarify: this article is on the verge of promotion. If there are still problems, the coordinators cannot spend too long searching for vague prose concerns. It needs to be concrete; not a laundry list, just samples to see how close we are. Otherwise your comments could be disregarded as unactionable. Asking "those above" is to clarify the prose points as your concerns now seem to be prose related. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for your kind guidance. In truth, my concerns are not only prose related:
  • (undent) It is cited very spottily, but I am being gracious and passing on that issue, because of recent discussions. Examples of spotty cites? No page numbers for direct quotes: He has been variously described as a [[polymath]],{{sfn|Festing|1978}} "the modern Linnaeus",{{sfn|Buchan|2007}}{{sfn|Stafleu|Cowan|1985}}{{sfn|Bourne|2010}} "the great Linnaean scholar of our day", {{sfn|Cox|2003}} "one of the world’s greatest botanists"{{sfn|Carmichael|2007}}... One description that Stearn rejected, however, was "The Complete Naturalist"{{efn|"I note you are giving a lecture relating to me as 'a Complete naturalist' which I am most certainly far from being: the only person to whom that distinction could have been given in modern times was [[Charles E. Raven|Charles Raven]]"{{sfn|Walters|1992b}} I believe there are other cites to books that are without page numbers. Does the practice of eliding 1c by skipping page numbers for journals (which we have discussed elsewhere) also extend to books?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I thought we had dealt with the page numbering and reached a Nolo Contendere? As explained above - do we really need a page number within a 3 page article? It sounds like this has been the subject of extensive discussion elsewhere - so I'm happy to take another look at the examples provided here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Exact page numbers provided for all above examples --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dangling modifiers
  • I killed a few dangling modifiers; the nominator even re-introduced at least one. Let's find some examples:
    • But then it evolved into an etymological dictionary, only to discover such a work had already been published in the Netherlands before the war. [The book made a discovery?]
reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • One of the focuses of his work at the Natural History Museum was Caribbean flora, which included field work. [field work is a Caribbean plant?]  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Run-on sentence: He first met them in 1967 and offered practical help with their museum and stayed with them when they visited Greece.
reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • A series of botanical publications followed, starting with a new species of Allium (A. farreri Stearn, 1930), a genus he would repeatedly turn to, many of which bear his name and of which he was considered a world expert.
reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Snake: Seven volumes of Flora of Jamaica had appeared prior to the Second World War, and although the project was revived after the war, Stearn's efforts which included six months field work in Jamaica (where he followed in the footsteps of Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753), whose collection was left to the Museum) did not come to fruition and no further volumes appeared.
reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Snake: While at the Library he continued his self-education through evening classes, learning Swedish, and travelling widely during his three-week annual leaves in the pre-war years to visit other botanical libraries, botanic gardens, museums, herbaria and collections, as well as collecting plants, with special emphasis on Epimedium and Allium.
reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • OK this next one is grammatically fine, but why is it included in the article on Stearn? "Lindley also bequeathed his herbarium to the Cambridge University Herbarium, where it now forms the Lindley Collection"
That one is simple. Stearn was a Lindley specialist. Lindley's books were bequeathed to the library where Stearn was employed, while his plant collection was given to the Cambridge University herbarium where Stearn's career began. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Snake: In 1930, the library had been rehoused in a new floor added to the Society's Vincent Square headquarters, and the role of the library somewhat downgraded, with the appointment of Frederick Chittenden as Keeper of the Library (1930–1939), and to whom Hutchinson reported.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. Do the other reviewers have any comments on these points? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Happy to take another look at all the above examples and see if I can understand the objections. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Citation

(undent) Well then, I'm glad we're moving forward constructively. My original goal was to request a copy edit (from someone other than me, because it seemed you disagreed with me), then step away gracefully. Alas, the vigilant eye of Sarastro1 locked on me as I was on my way out the door, and pressed me for details which i originally did not want to provide. Thus pressed, I provided. Now you know the reason why referencing was reintroduced into the discussion... as for that topic, you said, "It maybe that someone is implying motive by citation - to add a citation does not always mean - I'm justifying this sentence - in a number of cases it means - and this is the material I'm referring to." I... have never seen anyone use {{sfn}} in the latter manner, and I am not sure whether it should or can be used in that manner. It seems to me that it runs a grave danger of WP:OR, tho many might say in this case it's an exception. I defer here to the opinions of others. As for "spotty", I mean "page numbers" again. This is an ongoing debate and I was trying to defer the issue for another day and another article... However, I do think you should at the very very least add page numbers for direct quotes, provided the source has page numbers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say I am confused as to what the intention is here, and that's after spending many years as reviewer, editorial board member and editor of academic journals. It is not a matter of sfn or any other citation device. If you refer to something, provide a citation. That's not original research, its secondary research, surely. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
A citation supports/defends an assertion. A note provides extra information (perhaps clarifying or expanding a point). Are you defending, or providing extra info? It seems to me you are doing the latter... If you point to a primary source and make an assertion about that primary source based on your own observations, it usually is WP:OR, but there are exceptions (e.g., a fact that is obvious from looking at a map ). Is your case the same type? I have already explicitly stated that I would defer to the opinions of others as to whether or not notes and citations can be mixed in the same section in this case.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I am just trying to get some clarity, so we can proceed. I don't think I was inserting any of my own assertions. Can you point to what you think is OR? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying it's OR, actually – just an unusual practice that might be wandering toward the range of things considered OR. And you described it yourself: any time you use a reference to mean "this is the material I'm describing". BTW, I have not looked at the article in a day or so. If these things are cleared up, please say so. Sorry & tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
With specific reference to citations, no I haven't changed any (other than page numbers) because I am awaiting input as to which specific ones concern you --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:ALLPRIMARY says "Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." There seem to be many (many) similar examples in this article. Two closely related questions questions therefore are, how "acceptable" are they, and how "flexible" should we be? In cases where there is no significant extra information – just a bare mention of the publication's name – and similar bare info, the use of a primary source is acceptable.
I don't ever recall seeing that primary sources are unacceptable? Are you saying it requires additional sourcing? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Forex, "Later enlarged and reissued as a book{{sfn|Raven|2000}}" You can almost certainly find a direct statement of "revised" and "enlarged" in the book itself. This is almost certainly acceptable.
    • However, when we are given even more extra information before the cite, it moves into a more problematic area. Forex, "Stearn became a member of the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) in 1954,{{sfn|BSBI|2016}} joining the Maps Committee the following year to prepare their Atlas of the British Flora (1962).{{sfn|Perring|Walters|1962}}" Does Perring & Walters say any of the following: Stearn joined the committee. He joined the committee in 1955. He joined the committee to write the book... And how does he join in 1955 to write a book in 1962?
That's because the secondary source (Robson) is provided at the end of that paragraph dealing with Stearn's association with the BSBI, rather than attached to every statement within it. To be clear I have added a page reference to the secondary source. As far as the dates go, that is how long it took to prepare a very detailed mapping of the British Flora --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Another example: "1930 would also see his first bibliographic work, on the botanist Reginald Farrer,{{sfn|Stearn|1930a}}" I'm OK with mentioning "1930" and "bibliographic work", but does Stearn 1930a say anywhere (the introduction?) "Ahem, my name is Stearn, and this is my first bibliographic work"?
That is because I make two statements in that sentence and provide the secondary source, with page numbers {{sfn|Nelson|Desmond|2002|pp=144,146,148}} after the second - are you requesting the source be added after each of the two statements in the sentence? In an abundance of caution I have done so --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Another example: "Amongst his early work, starting in 1932 were several papers on Epimedium, which he had studied at Cambridge, Kew and Paris, and a genus for which he became known, and many species of which bear his name.{{sfn|Avent|2010}}" I count.. 5 and perhaps 6 assertions in that sentence [early work, starting in 1932, several papers, studied at Cambridge Kew & Paris, became known for, many species his name]. How many of those assertions are actually contained within Avent 2010? Maybe all of them, in the introduction I would guess. But are they?
Not exactly. Avent supports the statements in the second half of the sentence. The issues around London, Cambridge and Paris were dealt with in earlier sections, and I don't think bear repeating. Again, to be cautious, I added the appropriate pages of Nelson & Desmond - the same as in the previous sentence - to support the first statement. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • [November 11th 1960. Promoted by Professor Jan van Steenis, whose citation mentioned, inter alia, Stearn's "remarkable rise to a lofty scientific level by exploiting with energy, perseverance, caution and a rare combination of talent and character — under difficult and often disheartening circumstance] direct quote needs page number
Added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • [Blunt states he received "some 30 foolscap pages of comments, almost all of which have been incorporated, often indeed verbatim, in my text". ] direct quote needs page number
Added - I hope this addresses your concerns --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I just became aware of the prolonged discussion around this on WP:FAC, so it would appear it is not entirely straight forward --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "not entirely straight forward"?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Only that there appear to be a range of opinions --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, good then. I've been trying unsuccessfully for over a day to extract myself from this review. I will now give a one-shot summary of the conceptual differences between your practice and my understanding of "best practice". After that, I am really gonna try to walk away again. :-). This will be a little long (sorry!!!), so I will number the topics. Sorry again!
  1. So here goes: you say there is a range of opinions about referencing, and you are correct when it comes to journals. Science people (Jimfbleak, Sabine's Sunbird, etc.) are apparently accustomed to the practice of omitting page numbers for journals. And that's of course OK within their field (of course, of course), but the debate is whether that's OK for Wikipedia. But again, this stark difference of referencing paradigms is only about journals. I honestly... I could be wrong... but I honestly do not think there is any experienced Wikipedian who thinks direct quotes can ever go without page numbers. I think everyone agrees that every direct quote should have a page number, no matter whether it comes from book, journal, etc. [Jimfbleak said on his talk page that he very strongly doubts that he would ever directly quote a journal, but that is a sub-issue.] I am not here to engage in this debate in this forum; I am only saying that you are correct that the debate exists and is unresolved – with respect to journals. For that reason, I am certainly willing to let journals slide here. I have already Opposed on one separate FAC, as the proper scope for the debate.
  2. As I said, I strongly believe that everyone thinks direct quotes should always get page numbers. In addition, I think most people believe that facts cited to books should always get page numbers, whether they are direct quotes are not. You can ask the people I mentioned above about that. Regardless, I am even willing to let some (but not all) cites from books slide here, at least somewhat, because... just because. Just because WP:AGF, since you are experienced in the field, and you have made a good faith effort to include page numbers. According to a very strict application of the rules as I see them, I should not let any book cites slide. But I am. I will. Per WP:AGF. Do you understand this point?
All direct quotes have page numbers --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Now we come to the issue of using {{sfn}} simply to indicate "this is the book or article I am discussing at this moment". One of your comments above opened my eyes to the problem here. In one example above, you said, "That's because the secondary source (Robson) is provided at the end of that paragraph." OK. Here's the problem: You are using one tool (that would be {{sfn}}) to perform two functions (as a pointer to a cite/reference, and as a pointer to a note). Unfortunately, in the case above, there is a scoping clash. You are using the {{sfn}} at the end of the paragraph as a pointer to a cite/reference; you are intending its scope to cover the entire paragraph. But inside that paragraph, and therefore inside the scope of the "Robson" reference, is a {{sfn}} that you are using as a pointer to a note. So... the inner scoping does not override the outer scoping, in your mind, because they serve different purposes. In your mind, they do not clash. But how do other readers disambiguate the purposes and the scoping? How do they determine when you are using {{sfn}} to point to a note, and when you are {{sfn}} to point to a cite/reference? There are no visual clues to distinguish "This is what I am talking about here in this sentence; it's a note" from "This supports my assertion, it is a cite/reference." So to make a very very very long story short (too late!), I very strongly suggest that you provide a clear visual clue to disambiguate the two rhetorical goals. More specifically, please stop using {{sfn}} as a footnote device. You can use different ways of circumventing this issue:
    1. You can put that info in a {{efn|footnote}}
    2. If you think about it and if you decide this particular article or book or whatever that you are discussing really isn't a major waypoint in Stearn's career, you can simply skip mentioning the title at all.
    3. If you are sure it's a waypoint and feel averse to using a footnote for any reason, you can just include it in the article's text.
    4. If other solutions don't seem appropriate for a certain point, in some contexts you could use {{harvtxt}} or {{harvnb}} or {{harv}}, perhaps with a little additional punctuation.
  2. There we go. I hope this huge post can somehow bridge the communicative gap here. I apologize for the very grave danger of tl;dr.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we have reached an impasse here. It is probably time to get some other opinions as to whether this is actually an issue or not. I understand you feel very strongly about it, but I would like some sort of concensus, since it clearly makes an enormous difference in the construction of WP articles. You appear to be making a very stark distinction between primary and secondary sources and it would seem want them visually separated. I'm not at all sure that referring to "notes" helps the discussion much since that is a separate issue. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Break for air (gasp)[edit]

I've just become aware that a re-opinion has been requested, and uh, I guess there goes my evening? It's a big article with another big article's worth of comments since my support, but I'll try and provide my opinion in a timely way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • On second pass through -
  • I find the sentence Seward was impressed by him, giving him access to the herbarium of the Botany School (now Department of Plant Sciences - see image)[13] where he worked as a part-time research assistant,[2] and later to the Cambridge University Library.[1][9] a touch vague about which he worked as a part time research assistant, I assume it wasn't Sward.
True - rephrased --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In his war service but was accepted into the Royal Air Force (RAF) Medical Services, given his work with the St John Ambulance Brigade. what work? Never mentioned before.
Ok - rephrased --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I may still be smarting from WP:BIRD being brought to heel by WP:MOS, but is it customary for sentences like were obliged to live in the Library - I know which library but why the caps?
Specified - --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • More to come, but to be clear this isn't enough of itself to remove my support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, finished my second pass through. There were a number of places were I found myself wanting to rewrite, but concluded that I would not make it better, only different and more how I would write. I remain impressed at the scope of the article and its depth and thoroughness, and found the prose fine (although on occasion it dipped into more detail than necessary, I'll allow it) . I have one last matter to look into, Lingzhi's sticking point about the use of {{sfn}} as a citation tool and footnote. I think I understand the point he is driving at. I want to go through again to see if it impedes verifiability or confuses as he suggests. But it's late here and I must concede I won't get to that tonight. On balance though I still support this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - the danger is often is that every time someone comes by and rewrites, the next person wants to change it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm traveling and cannot edit much. If you compare my t tldr scoping discussion to my earlier confusion about one sfn covering various facts maybe it will make sense. I don't want separation be primary and secondary sources I want sfn used for citations only. Am on cellphone can't discuss.(talk)
    • I think we got that - but that is till separating primary and secondary --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Necessary. Use fen in article text; use harv variant inside footnote. Not strange not unheard of.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bookstore[edit]

To my ear "bookstore" sounds like North American English in contrast to "bookshop" which sounds BrE. I have some forms of agreement: from oxforddictionaries.com which in BrE simply diverts bookstore, without comment, to bookshop (how rude!); from Chambers which defines bookstore as North American for bookshop; and from OED which has "bookstore, n. ... Chiefly U.S. ... A bookshop." I don't want to go crashing around in an FAC in my size 10 wellies changing stuff, but would involved editors please carefully consider altering bookstore to bookshop in its seven appearances here? Thank you. In passing can I also say that in the fifth appearance of bookstore, in "Cambridge years (1929–1933)", I don't understand the reason for its having a capital B. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to ignore what some later biographers referred to it as, and do some research into what it was actually called, which turns out to be "Booksellers". However the predominance of contemporary references seem to refer to it as "bookshop" so I will change it as you suggest. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That's great, thanks very much. I know it sounded picky of me but I do find it reads better now. And yes, bookseller could have worked too - I had not thought of that - but bookshop does sound fine. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisit by Jim[edit]

As requested, I've had another look at this. I think the prose reads very well, my only new comment being that "spare time" may be superfluous in "spare time, lunchtimes, evenings and weekends"—what else is left? The references now look much better than before, and the restyling has aided their usability. I still support this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Tx I will take a look --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda[edit]

I was invited on my talk, and like to follow.

General

  • Please decide for consistent date format, I'd say European.
You are correct, MOS requires consistent format but does not specify "European". UK usage is not consstent but dmy is the most common - the few dates that were mdy have been changed, thanks
I wasn't precise, should have said consistant within an article, and European for a European topic. Thank you.
  • Consider - if life and work are split - to have life afterwards, - it's a bit difficult to return to Cambridge after his wife was 103 ;)
Interesting idea - there may be inconsistencies either way. The format for biographies, at least in the Plant project, is Life then Work. I think rather than look for sequiturs it is best to consider the two as free standing entities
Understand. Never wrote a substantial bio like this one. My typical opera singers have a career, then recordings, little life ;)
I like lots of life - if I can find it. I like to make my characters human.
  • If split, wouldn't the bicycle commuting belong to life?
There are actually three general sections - Life - Career - Work. I placed the several references to bicycles - see for instance photograph on 1st page of Festing - was his preferred method of comuting between places of work, so I placed them in Career.
Fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can more cites have page numbers?
What should have page numbers is a topic of active discussion at FAC. Most of the cites refer to either a particular work, or within the various biographical articles ("Articles about Stearn"). Of these, many are web resources, and the rest articles with only 1-5 pages, so I'm not sure that adding page umbers for every cite would be helpful. However all direct quotes have been paginated.

Lead

  • Perhaps a hint at him being influential in the first paragraph?
Good point - added
  • Perhaps no wife and children in the lead at all, certainly not before talking about why we should read about him.
That would depend on how the main text is structured. The lead is a summary of the text, and it seems to make sense to me at least to follow the order of the main text.
I actually don't believe that the summary has to follow the same order. Remember that the reader is not yet introduced to your structure life/career/work, so might be surprised that he first dies, then works ;) - I wouldn't mention the children if all you can say about them is that they survived him, or I might say something minimal such as "The couple had three children." - Language question: at the time of his wedding, his wife "would become" his collaborator, but from the perspective of a summary, "she became", no?

Childhood

  • Perhaps get father's name as a unit, not the surname a line later, the unit followed by "and his wife ..."?
I'm not sure I completely follow you here. I have tried ordering this a number of different ways, and changed it again just recently - the surname is introduced at the beginning of line one (William Thomas Stearn) so it is a reasonable assumption that his father would also be Stearn. One could call his parents Thomas Stearn and Ellen Stearn, rather than Tomas and Ellen Stearn - or one take a feminist position and refer to his parents as Thomas Stearn and Ellen Kiddy. Let me play around with these. For now I am adopting option 2 - "Thomas Stearn (1871/2–1922) and Ellen ("Nellie") Kiddy (1886–1986)"
You did what I wanted ;) - The mother with a different surname would tell me, they were not married, or was she Ellen ("Nellie", née Kiddy, 1886–1986)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily, since whether she took his name or not is not discussed - but as phrased it gives her more autonomy. They were the people who became his parents
  • Perhaps repeat his name - instead of "his" - when he hasn't been mentioned in two sentences, but the father instead.
Agree, done
  • "Milton Road Junior Council School (see image)" - the "(see image)" is new to me, and I don't find the image.
Thank you for making me rethink that one. There is a story behind that one. During GAN I was obliged to remove a number of images that turned out to be non-free. So I made them external links and placed them in the Bibliography under Images. If you click on the citation next to the image it took you to the citation link. So I just simplified the whole thing. All links to external images (since external links in line are not allowed) are anchored directly to the link in Images!
Thank you, understand now, and think it's a great solution! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "He would spend his school holidays on his uncle's Suffolk, tending cows grazing by the roadside, and where he observed the wild flowers of the hedgerows and fields." - may be my lack of English, but "tending" then "observed" reads a bit awkward.
Agree, rephrased
  • "and while he was there, he was encouraged by his biology teacher, Mr Eastwood, who recognised his talents" - I guess that could be put simpler without loosing the meaning.
Agree, rephrased
  • "He would also spend part of his school holidays" might be better without "also".
Agree, rephrased

Later life

  • "develop linguistic (particularly German and the classics) and bibliographic skills." - takes too long before we get to skills.
Agree

Lindley

  • "Librarian at the Royal Horticultural Society's (RHS) Lindley Library" - how about "Librarian at the Lindley Library of the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS)"?
Agree --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am thoroughly impressed by the man's work - and yours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Gerda. I will carefully examine each one and respond a little later --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Watching, and please feel free to insert your comments right below the items, indenting to clarify what's yours. Just sign the last comment of one edit, not every single one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I am now happy with all the details, - just not yet the order of summary in the lead, and the passive role the children "play" there. Would like to know what others think. Bach was mentioned: the lead doesn't say by how many children he was survived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
And he had lots and lots of children! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

I'll do a source review; I hope to get it done today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review:

I will try and get to all these on Sunday
  • There's a harv error showing for footnote 13: "link from #CITEREFCUBS1904 doesn't point to any citation".
Oh, yes, earlier reviewer wanted source deleted - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No location for Bowles, Perring & Walters, or Stern; or (in the collaborative section) for Baumann (1993) or the first Linnaeus.
Absent locations generally because not stated (and a defect in Google Books), therefore some sleuthing is required - will inquire further
If they're not stated, that's OK, but if they can be found of course that would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- fixed
  • You don't give the location for Cambridge University Press in most cases, which is fine, but then in a couple of cases you do (Arber, Tutin). I'd suggest being consistent.
Agree - erred on side of inclusion
You had both "Cambridge" and "Cambridge, England", so I made them consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Tx
  • Suggest being consistent with US locations and states; you have "Santa Barbara CA", "Pittsburgh", and "Portland, Or.". I've had non-US editors request fully spelled out state names, rather than abbreviations, so I'd suggest "Santa Barbara, California", "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", and so on.
All US States spelled out in full
  • Woodcock & Coutts is listed under books, but the date has a month and day, and the publisher is just given as "Country Life". Did this actually appear in a magazine?
Country Life also published books. Another Google Books thing - they tend to give exact date of publication. I took a look at a copy for verification - amended and added additional biblio material for erification
  • I haven't seen anyone include an "inauthor" search on Google in a bibliography section, and given that we can't know how the results of the search will change as Google changes its algorithm, I'm not sure this is a good idea. Have you seen this done in other articles?
Well, seeing it on other pages gave me the idea. I based the decision to include it on the grounds that as more books get digitised, it will automatically update. No worse than any other xlink that can rot
  • Does the "Works by Stearn" section include only a selection of his works? If so I think it should say so at the top of that section.
Yes, he wrote 500! I added the word "cited" to clarify the criteria for inclusion
I guessed it would be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Selected publications section it appears you indent with "Reviews:" to introduce reviews in some cases but not all; is there a reason for the different formats?
Probably the number! I changed them all to cite format
  • The second-to-last citation at the end of "Articles about Stearn" (Heywood) appears to be out of alphabetical order. I assume you're placing the Jstor Global Plants one at the end as there's no author available?
Correct on both counts - fixed
  • You have a citation for "Stearn, William (15 October 1965a)" but there doesn't appear to be a 1965b. There are several others like this -- 1952, 1955, 1981, 1989. I thought perhaps you were using the "a" suffix where there is a less specific date -- e.g. Stearns 1952 and Stearns 7 September 1952a, so that the latter can be referred to just as 1952a, but that doesn't appear to be necessary for the 1981 or 1989 citations.
(i) Stearn 1965. The original citation was cited as {{sfn|Stearn|1965}}, when another publication was added later I made the date 1965a to differentiate it, according to the rules I had seen (the alternative being to go back and change the original to 1965a and make the new one 1965b). (ii) Similarly for the other instances, eg 1952 etc all of which I just checked
I follow you, and I agree that most of the cites are fine. Let me just ask a couple of follow up points.
  • 1952: There are three Stearns citations for 1952: "William Herbert's 'Appendix'...", which is dated November 1952; "Proposed International Code...", which is dated 1952; and "International Code of Nomenclature...", which is dated "7 September 1952a". I agree you don't need to make them 1952a, 1952b, and 1952c, but when you cite "Stearn 1952", as you do in footnotes 125 and 126, I'm not clear which of the first two you're referring to.
I see what you mean - ok, this could take a while to sort out and make sure there is no ambiguity. I have clarified the Stearn cites
  • 1965: I can't see that you cite the 1965a article anywhere; am I missing it?
No. There was no harv parameter. I added it as a placeholder while I toyed whether to cite it or not - eventually I did. So it is now cited
  • 1989: It took me a while to see that "Stearn 1989" referred to the "Nandina, Ranzania..." chapter in Cullen 2011. I see from the wikitext that you've labelled this as a 1989 source, but I don't see anything that explains that date in the visible form of the citation -- shouldn't there be?
That's a complicated story. As a matter of principle, I reduced clutter in using chapters of books by omitting all redundant matter such as dates, eg Smith (1989) in Jones (1989) (though every now and then someone flies by with AWB and reinserts them). In this particular case it is more complicated. His chapter was published in the original 1989 edition of the book, but also reprinted posthumously in the 2011 edition, which is the one I cited and linked to online edition (but included "original date"). I could put the date back, but it would still look odd as Stearn (1989) in Cullen (2011) - unless of course I add another foot note.
Foot note added in abundance of caution
These three points are all that's left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems the journal just reorganised their website - I have replaced the old url with the new one
  • One citation to Stafleu & Cowan gives the page number; the other doesn't -- I'd suggest making them consistent.

That's all I can find on the sources. I'll do a spotcheck shortly and report back here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's because I was asked to prioritise pagination of direct quotes - and its only 3 pages long. Since its available online I changed both to direct page links
And I think that completes all responses to Source review --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done a spotcheck and have no concerns, though I should say that I have no access to the major sources used. I check about six or seven of the sources which I am able to access and found no problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide if you so wish --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; that would be very helpful. I've emailed you with three requests. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
So notifications says - but I have been waiting for the email all morning! Try emailing me directly? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you have an email link I can use, perhaps on an external webpage? Or try emailing me through my email link . Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is here. Ok, its on my user page but here it is again - mgoodyear@dal.ca --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I've emailed you; let me know if you haven't received it within a few minutes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Sent --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Spotchecks are good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review is complete; there are no issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mary Kom (film)[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aoba47
  • Reference 91 is dead and either needs to be replaced with a new source or recovered through a website archive. Same comment applies to reference 6.
  • I would imagine that the ALT description for the image of the actual Mary Kom would need to be more descriptive than "Mary Kom". Please expand this. You are very good with the other ALT descriptions so just modify this one to match the quality of the others.
  • I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph. What do you mean by "first appearance"? Could you please clarify what this sentence means?
  • I would move the "despite her numerous achievements" to the end of the sentence to avoid awkwardly cutting that part of the sentence in two.
  • The phrase "much before" in the lead is awkward and too informal. You can just use "before" or an exact time/time estimate if known.
  • The use of the parenthesis in the last paragraph of the lead is a little awkward. The placement of (Chopra) directly before the word categories is a little odd and I would suggest revising this to avoid this.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who is singing the Indian national anthem at the end of the movie and is it worth identifying?
  • The phrase "woman-oriented biographical subject" sounds a little odd and ambiguous to me as it can read either as looking for a good female subject to make a movie out of and look for a good biographical subject that appeals to a female audience. This might just be me, but it just sounds a little strange to me and I would recommend revising it to make the meaning clearer.
  • In the phrase "he felt disgusted", do you need to clarify that he felt disgusted at himself for not knowing about her? Who was he disgusted towards? Himself? The media for not bringing her more into attention?
  • I would say "first choice" instead of "original choice" as the term "original choice" implies that it didn't work out and someone else had to play the character.
  • I would revise the wording for "choice of actor" since it is so close to the quote "perfect choice" that it is a little bit too repetitive in such a close proximity.
  • In the sentence about Danny Denzongpa, do you know who was doing the reports about him being a part of the film? If you specified who was doing the reporting, it would not only avoid the passive sentence construction from "It was reported", but also give a clearer idea to the reader on what is occurring.
  • The last sentence in the "Pre-production" subsection needs a citation.
  • Any information on the commercial performance of the soundtrack?
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the reference titles (i.e. reference 98).

@Krish!: This is a very strong article. Great work with it. Once my comments are resolved, then I will support this nomination. I am not familiar with anything about this film or Indian films in general and I have never actually ever seen anything with Priyanka Chopra so I apologize if I miss anything. Good luck with this and hopefully, this review gets more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for your kind words and I have worked really hard on this. It was supposed to be my first solo FAC but I ended up nominating another one which was successful. I really liked this film and saw over 10 times in theatre alone particularly because of Chopra and the inspiring story. It might not be a great film, thanks to its weak and manipulative direction, but is certainly entertaining and inspiring thanks to Chopra's spectacular performance.Krish | Talk 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Krish!: Awesome! I am glad that you enjoyed it. An actor's performance can definitely elevate a film. I can definitely support this nomination and good luck with getting this passed. I was wondering if you could possibly provide some comments for my FAC as well? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or energy for this. Great with work with article and hopefully it will receive more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks and I will try to look at your nomination.Krish | Talk 15:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I will have to check out this movie someday as you have piqued my interest about it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You can watch Chopra's other films also. Checkout those which are listed in her article's lead.Krish | Talk 15:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
  • The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • In a 2012 meeting with Sanjay Leela Bhansali, on being asked by Bhansali about his plans, Kumar told him about the film, explaining that this was not "his kind of cinema", given Bhansali's signature work. -- Bhansali repeats thrice in the sentence which needs to be rewritten for a simpler read. Also, why introduce the person again when the very first sentence does that job with a wikilink too?
  • Priyanka Chopra was Omung Kumar's and Sanjay Leela Bhansali's first choice for the title role -- Again, why introduce the makers again?
  • Later in that month, it was confirmed that she had been cast for the part. -- Who confirmed this? the makers or the actress' spokesperson? Please mention it.
  • In an interview with Daily News and Analysis, Mary Kom said "I don't think anybody could have done it as well as Priyanka. She is the best actress to play me. Acting anybody can do, but boxing will be different as one needs a certain type of body structure. She suits that. Her body is very structured, like that of a boxer." -- Please paraphrase this quote. It is a WP:QUOTEFARM issue that needs to be addressed.

More later in the day. Pavanjandhyala 04:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't see any actual reason for existence of the infobox in the soundtrack section. Can't we mention the label and release date directly in the paragraphs with reliable sources?
  • The film made profits of ₹50 million (US$740,000) before the release. -- No other figure in the entire paragraph was given a conversion. Why this?
  • Subhash K. Jha's review is another issue of WP:QUOTEFARM. Please look into it.
  • Ensure that every link here is white.

I don't have any other concerns beyond this. Let me know once you are done. Pavanjandhyala 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Fixed. And, I don't know about the infobox but most of the FAs happens to have this. Coming to your quotefarm complain, its the only two line quote in the whole article and nobody even said a word about it during the PR review. I think its fine considering its the only line in that review that gives a proper summary of what the reviewer wanted to say. And, yes, I would be archiving all the sources on Thursday as I have a test tomorrow.Krish | Talk 05:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry about that. Let me know once the job is done. Pavanjandhyala 16:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pavanjandhyala: What more do you want me to fix? I think I told you above that I have fixed everything and I cannot remove that quote.Krish | Talk 12:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — My concerns are addressed and i have nothing further to say. Wish you good luck on this. Pavanjandhyala 12:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I had my say at its PR a while ago, and the article is still in good shape. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash

I'll try and make prose improvements wherever possible. As for my comments, lets begin with the lede section...

  • The film title in the intro section needs to be boldened and italicised.
  • I don't think you have to say "biographical sports drama film". It will cause genre overload. Just the first two genres are enough.
  • Try reducing usage of the word "film" as much as possible.
  • This section complies with WP:LEADCITE, and that's not a concern.

Plot

  • I say the actor names are best removed from this section if you want to keep them linked in "Production" to avoid violating WP:OVERLINK. Also, please try to stay in-universe as much as possible.

Cast

  • Please see that it complies with WP:FILMCAST. All characters must be sourced. But if they are sourced elsewhere apart from this section, you don't have to add sources here.

Production

  • Please see that unnecessary rumours are avoided to comply with WP:RUMOUR.
  • However, Kom was surprised by the development as the sport, especially women's boxing, was not well known in India. However, she was enthusiastic about the idea - "However" has come twice, and I'm not sure it satisfies WP:NPOV.

Final comments

  • Life's too short for someone like me to go through each source to see that all content is written as per. I'm sure the admins will do a better job. You may want to combat link rotting (Archive.is is best advised for sites like The Times of India and CNN-News18, formerly CNN-IBN). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kailash29792: Fixed everything. I can assure you that no rumours and made-up stories are the part of this article. And, I will be archiving the sources soon.Krish | Talk 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Vedant

Will put up comments after taking a good look at this, can be a couple of days. NumerounovedantTalk 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

William J. Donovan[edit]

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

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

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

image review

  • File:William_Donovan.jpg: source link is dead, tagged as lacking author
  • File:Donovan_wwi_285.jpg: is a more specific source available?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Chevalier_ribbon.svg is too simple for copyright protection
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Commandeur_ribbon.svg: tag should reflect the status of the design. Same with File:Croix_de_guerre_1914-1918_with_palm.jpg, File:Order_of_the_British_Empire_(Military)_Ribbon.png, File:Nastro_Croce_Lateranense.png, File:Order_of_Pope_Sylvester_BAR.svg, File:Cavaliere_OCI_BAR.svg, File:Croce_di_guerra_al_merito_BAR.svg, File:Grand_Officer_Ordre_de_Leopold.png, File:Czechoslovak_War_Cross_1939-1945_Bar.png, File:NLD_Order_of_Orange-Nassau_-_Grand_Officer_BAR.png, File:St_Olavs_Orden_storkors_stripe.svg, File:Order_of_the_White_Elephant_-_1st_Class_(Thailand)_ribbon.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • These elements should be referenced:
    • "Meanwhile, his superiors were impressed by his "cool and firm leadership," which made him "a legend" throughout the Allied Expeditionary Forces and "a celebrity back home." Excerpts from his letters to his wife, in which he vividly recounted his combat experiences, were published in New York newspapers."
Added reference to [12].
I just went ahead and just removed this.
    • "At the Justice Department, Donovan hired women and eschewed yes-men. He and his wife became a popular Washington couple, although Donovan's relationship with FBI Acting Director J. Edgar Hoover, who was briefly one of his underlings, was fraught with friction."
Added reference to [13]
    • the entire paragraph beginning: "Roosevelt came to place great value on Donovan's insight..."
Done [14]
    • the entire paragraph beginning: "While British authorities and the US military and State Department..."
Done
    • the list of Awards and decorations
I've added a handful of references but am having a tough time locating additional sources for the remaining medals. If we are unable to find sources, would you suggest removing the ones unsourced?
Yes, that is the best course of action, IMO, for a Featured Article candidate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, if no one else can dig and find references for the remaining awards either, I'll go ahead and remove. Meatsgains (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced awards. [15]
  • the Further reading section should be below the References per WP:LAYOUT
done
  • in the Further reading section, the entries for Troy, Duffy, McKay, Reilly and Stevenson are inconsistent in their layout compared to the others
Done.
  • in the Notes, there are also a few inconsistencies, e.g. Brown 1982 uses sfn citations when the others do not. Also compare Rumer, ,Lovell, Clifford, Anthony Cave Brown etc to "Waller 2011"
Which format would you suggest I change the references to? "Waller 2011, p. 11." or "James Montague, Versifier, Is Dead," New York Times, December 17, 1941"?
I'd suggest {{Sfn}} but the choice is yours so long as it is consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • the Further reading section should be sorted alphabetically
done
  • in the References, the date format is inconsistent, for instance I see "February 27, 2016", but also "2010-07-09" and "20 February 2017". Please make these consistent
I didn't notice all these consistencies. They have been corrected.
There are still some issues here, for instance compare "2010-07-09" with "March 14, 2011" and "22 March 2017". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • for an FA, I think you will need to try to broaden the referencing base. Currently there are a lot of refs to Waller, which makes sense to an extent as that work no doubt focuses on the subject specifically, but I would suggest also trying to add some refs to some of the works in the Further reading section as well to ensure that the body of literature has been adequately canvassed
  • there appears to be a missing word here: "...would attempt to engage in a political career, but with little success" (before "would")
Done.
  • the dab link "acquisition" should be re-aimed
Link removed by another user [16].
  • "1st battalion of the 165th" --> "1st Battalion, 165th" as a proper noun
Done.
  • "chief of staff of the 165th regiment" --> "chief of staff of the 165th Regiment"
Done.
  • suggest adding some attribution in text here: "Going into battle, he "ignored the officers' custom of covering or stripping off insignia of rank (targets for snipers) and instead sallied forth wearing his medals."" (i.e. who recounts this?)
done
  • "president gave the job to the "lackluster" Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter..." who describes Hillenkoetter as "lackluster"?
"Donovan's biographer - Doug Waller. done.
Comments
Done.
  • he "explore[d] ideas beyond Catholic dogma" Any idea what? (I'm thinking democracy and freedom of religion, but that's just my guess.)
To provide greater context, the book says, "He continued to be an average student at Columbia, but the college gave him the opportunity to widen his intellectual horizon and explore ideas beyond Catholic dogma (though like Donovan, a large majority of his classmates professed to be conservative Republicans). At one point Donovan even questioned whether he even wanted to remain int eh Catholic Church and started attending services for other denominations and religions, including Jewish faith, to check them out. He decided to stick with Catholicism." So yes, I would imagine freedom of religion and/or "beyond" conservative Republican ideology. Should this clarification be added?
Done.
  • which became part of the 42nd Division under Douglas MacArthur No, it didn't. MacArthur was the division's chief of staff. (He later commanded the 84th Brigade, of which the 165th Infantry was not part.)
Fixed [17]
  • Going into battle, he "ignored the officers' custom of covering or stripping off insignia of rank (targets for snipers) and instead sallied forth wearing his medals." "They can't hit me and they won't hit you!" he told his men. Direct quotes require a reference.
Done - Vanity Fair article.
Done by another user [18].
  • Meanwhile, his superiors were impressed by his "cool and firm leadership," which made him "a legend" throughout the Allied Expeditionary Forces and "a celebrity back home." Excerpts from his letters to his wife, in which he vividly recounted his combat experiences, were published in New York newspapers. Is this supposed to be a reference? It reads weird. We don't normally allow such a vague source. And I'm not sure how reliable what soldiers tell their wives/girlfriends is.
I went ahead and just removed this.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt is linked multiple times.
Removed second link in infobox and one from the body.
  • Footnote 5: I really require a page number in a reference to a book.
Done - I replaced the references to the book with footnotes including page numbers for consistency.
  • Third paragraph of "World War II" is unreferenced.
Done
Done.
Done.
Source review
  • The first thing I noticed were the citations in the lead, which are not normally necessary, nor encouraged, since the lead is a wrap-up of what is in the article. However what is sourced in the lead appears nowhere else in the article; it needs to be in body of the article and sourced, recapped in the lead without citations: He is also known as the "Father of American Intelligence" and the "Father of Central Intelligence". "The Central Intelligence Agency regards Donovan as its founding father," wrote Evan Thomas in a 2011 Vanity Fair profile. The lobby of CIA headquarters, in Langley, Virginia, now features a statue of Donovan. Thomas observed that Donovan's "exploits are utterly improbable but by now well documented in declassified wartime records that portray a brave, noble, headlong, gleeful, sometimes outrageous pursuit of action and skulduggery."
Done.
  • Further reading section needs to have the "harv-ref" removed from each item, because it's showing an error message on each one except Brown and Donovan. Please see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, a handy tool that shows big red error messages if Harvard referencing is inconsistent or in error.
I believe this has been corrected, no?
No. What makes you believe this has been corrected? You need to open the Further Reading section in the edit window. Everywhere you see "ref = harv", remove it. But only in that section. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No Banners, No Bands, by Robert Alcorn, D. McKay, 1965. - has no publisher, no ISBN number, info incomplete on this one.
Can't seem to find the ISBN for this one... any suggestions?
  • Citation 12 - Thomas A. Rumer, The American Legion: A Official History. Needs ISBN, cite book formatting, put under References and an line citation consistent with the rest of the article.
  • Anthony Cave Brown book needs to be removed from the Further reading section and moved down to the References, as you have one sfn inline citation that points to it. It's the only sfn formatting used. Need consistency in style of which referencing you use. Either use all sfn, or all the bracketed type. The Anthony Cave Brown book is also listed inline in its entirety in Citation 24. That one needs to be standardized with its inline ciation.
  • Lovell, Stanley P. Of Spies and Stratagems - move it from "Further reading" into References, and format citation 66 accordingly.
  • Citation 73 - Clifford, Clark, Counsel To The President, A Memoir, New York: Random House, move into References, needs ISBN number, and format citation 73 accordingly.
  • Citation 80 - from the New York Times is formatted a little differently than other news cites. Be consistent.
  • All linked sources need "Retrieved" date.
  • Arlington National Cemetery is used in two different places as individual citations. The first place it's used is to list Donovan's medals. Tombstones are not reliable information for service records, and you need to replace that with non-Arlington individual citations for his medals. Since he died in 1959, the military has gone through its records correcting missing, or otherwise erroneous awards and decorations. Families have also petitioned for updates on individual military records. The second place Arlington appears as a citation is for his son's burial, which seems to be OK but would be better if you could come up with another source.
  • The first paragraph of Nuremberg Trials needs citation(s).
Done.
  • Medal of Honor citation URL just goes to the MOH site, but does not link directly to his page.
Fixed.

This was just a quick glance at what's in the sourcing. Good luck with this. — Maile (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Meatsgains, if you are not going to respond to reviewers comments, I think this FAC needs to be archived. I'd really like to see some responses by the end of the week (i.e. Friday) at the absolute latest. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for the delayed response! I will begin making the recommended improvements asap. Meatsgains (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I really appreciate all the feed back and suggestions here! I've got a lot to work to do. This is my first WP:FAC so I'm not sure what the timeframe is but when should the improvements be completed/is there a deadline before the FAC is archived? The next couple days are going to be busy for me but I plan to finish by next week. Thanks again. Meatsgains (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing at FAC should be interpreted as "do this or else". The worst that can happen is that the FAC nomination gets archived (i.e. it fails), which only means that you can put it back up in two weeks, after you've had a chance to try to do something about all the comments. Best of luck. I can help with copyediting, but it's too soon for that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no time limit, as long as something is happening. As you are now responding, there is no great rush as long as we are making some progress. However, I would advise against leaving an open FAC unattended for too long as it both discourages reviews and makes archiving more likely. Anyway, the ball is rolling now, so no problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • There are a lot of commas just before quote marks. Per our style guide (WP:LQ, in this case), that's fine if the comma actually appeared there in the quote, and quote is substantial (let's say, contains at least a verb). Otherwise, the comma goes outside the quote marks.
  • "led those [soldiers] to give him the nickname "Wild Bill", which would stick with him for the rest of his life"; "On the football field, he earned the nickname "Wild Bill", which would remain with him for the rest of his life.": A contradiction here.
  • "oversea": overseas?
Corrected typo.
Done
  • "Other OSS recruits included ... In 1942, the COI ceased being a White House operation and was placed under the aegis of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Roosevelt also changed its name to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).": It sounds like it would be more accurate to say they were recruited into the COI, since it wasn't the OSS yet. The sentence about "Oh so social" also comes too early.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It's an excellent biographical article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Syek88[edit]

I'll leave one comment at this point because it supersedes all others that I might have had. I want to pick up on the point made by AustralianRupert above about "broaden[ing] the referencing base". The fact that the article relies so heavily on one biography (Waller's) is, in my view, at least potentially problematic. The risk is that the article could inadvertently shackle itself to how Waller sees Donovan: the omissions he makes, the details he emphasises, etcetera. If there were a second or third detailed source upon which the article relied to an equivalent extent, any such perspective problems could be largely eliminated.

This issue is accentuated by the fact that Waller is not an academic source. If it were, we could be a little more confident that it is balanced and in appropriate perspective. Instead it is a bookstore biography. This is what a Professor of Government and Public Administration has said about it:

The book is written in the annoying style of newspaper journalism. Each chapter, and many sections within chapters opens with a hook sentence, e.g., ‘The telephone rang at midnight and the caller said..’ Then it back fills to get to the phone call, usually. I say ‘usually’ because a few of these hooks seem to be forgotten and go unexplained. It means each time the narrative is interrupted and resumed, like stop-start traffic. It jumps around so much I wondered if some of the dates were wrong. No doubt, this method of exposition is what makes it, per the cover, fast paced. It also made it, at times, unintelligible to this reader. It lapses into clichés far too often. Opponents are gunmen who gun down innocents. One-eyed and simple-minded more than once. No doubt these clichés are what make it exciting, per the front cover. I turned a lot of the later pages quickly, having long lost interest in Donovan’s travels, dinners, and handshakes, and his sometimes naive efforts to exert influence in China and elsewhere. These details tell the reader nothing about the man.

Having said that, these comments might be misdirected and betray their own bias. All other reviews of the book, including in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and Global War Studies, appear to be positive. The latter says that Waller's book is "balanced".

This is only a comment at this stage. I'm not going to dive in and oppose on this ground without discussion and careful consideration first.

Also, is there any reason why footnote 5, used on multiple occasions, is to the book generally rather than to specific pages of it? Syek88 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. Were you able to find additional critical reviews on Waller or the book because IMHO, one opinion from a single college professor isn't quite significant enough to discredit the book's neutrality or accuracy. Meatsgains (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
But I do agree, the page needs to not rely on Waller's book so much. Meatsgains (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, I've fixed the issue with footnote 5 and included page numbers. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
No, the Jackson review is the only critical one that I could find. Reviews in the legacy newspapers and journal articles (although there are only two of the latter and they don't seem to be high-level journals) are positive. I'm also a little mindful, as alluded to above, that Jackson himself might have his own angles. I certainly don't mean to discredit Waller as an unsuitable reference. I meant only to illustrate why a broader range of references would ensure we're on safe ground, and that probably wasn't the best way of illustrating it. So I don't think we disagree on anything of significance. Syek88 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III[edit]

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

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

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Comments what design changes were recommended for the Deutschland-class battleship after the grounding? What defects were identified during the trials? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Hildebrand doesn't say on either count, and the German sources I have that cover battleship development start with the dreadnoughts, unfortunately. The Deutschlands weren't exactly known for their resistance to underwater damage (witness Pommern at Jutland, while the dreadnoughts were, on the other hand, so it makes more sense to me that whatever changes that were recommended weren't actually incorporated into the Deutschland class. But that's just a hunch. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Link cylindrical boilers, keel, rivet, squadron (the generic term), armored frigate, launched, Kaiser, commissioned, Netherlands, flagship, coastal defense ships, ironclad, drydock, Kaiser Wilhelm II (the ship), rammed, grounding on first use
  • Watch the rounding in your conversions: 45 cm doesn't equal 18 inches
    • Fixed
  • Link the guns, redlinks are acceptable
    • Done
  • received 150 mm (5.9 in) of armor Redundant conversion
    • Fixed
  • along with the aviso Hela comma after Hela
    • Done
  • Service as a flagship is probably worth adding to the lede
    • There's already a line about that
  • for excellent gunnery Perhaps "excellence in gunnery"?
    • Works for me
  • a United States squadron Awkward, howzabout "an American" squadron?
    • Done
  • Probably worth mentioning that she was disarmed and that her guns were, IIRC, used as railroad guns on the Western Front.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Added details on this, but according to Friedman sixteen of the twenty 24cm guns from the class were employed as coastal guns (the remainder kept as spares, I assume) - he doesn't specify which guns went where, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

image review

  • File:Die_Gartenlaube_(1887)_b_517.jpg: what is the creator's date of death?
    • It's unclear - the illustration has a signature, but I can't make it out. According to the caption, it's based on a photograph by a Th. Politzky, but I can't find anything about him. In any event, I've uploaded it locally, since it's undoubtedly PD in the US, and the border needed to be cropped anyway.
  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Wilhelm_II_after_refit.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Also unclear, but according to the source, it was received by ONI in 1911, which indicates it was already in circulation by that point. Renard's photos were commonly printed as post cards, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, Iazyges, what are the grounds for your support if you have not looked at the prose. It is helpful to specify which of the FA criteria your support covers. At the moment, I am inclined to disregard this as a drive-by support unless you can expand on your comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I went and read the text and didn't find any room for improvement, short of rewriting entire sections for minimal improvement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Comments Support by Euryalus (all very minor, apologies in advance if these seem nitpicky)Changed to support per the below.

Lead
  • Minor sentence structure suggestion: How about "Kaiser Friedrich III’’ was extensively modernized in 1908; her secondary ". Also, this modernization seems to mark the commencement of a new chapter in her service, so might it fit better as the opening sentence of the third paragraph rather than the closing one of the second?
    • That works for me.
Design
  • Is there any way of explaining what a “Marine-type” boiler is, without that explanation overwhelming the section?
    • As I recall, they're just a type of boiler built by the Imperial shipyards - will have to check Gröner to see if he elaborates on that.
      • Thanks. No big deal.
  • There’ s a few paragraphs in a row that start with the name of the vessel. Perhaps change the opening of the second paragraph in Design to “The battleship”?
    • How about just "The ship"?
Service History (Construction to 1900)

First paragraph:

  • Forgive my ignorance, but what is the meaning of “construction number 22”?
    • It's the yard number - shipyards assign them to every ship they build.
  • “She was ordered under the contract name.." - was it normal for the contract name to be a placeholder? If not, do we know when she was renamed?
    • Yeah, it was standard at least for the German Navy to order ships either as replacements for out of date ships or as additions to the numerical strength of the fleet (since the number of ships was authorized by the Reichstag).
  • Do we know whether the three-shaft design that was of concern in the sea trials, was relevant to the subsequent rectification of defects? (removed, I see this was already asked above).
  • Second paragraph – wording is mildly confusing on first read through – sounds like she is escorting the Kaiser’s yacht and the aviso, and we only discover the Kaiser is also present when he is referred to at the sentence end. How about “sent to escort the Kaiser, aboard his yacht ‘’Hohenzollern’’ and accompanied by the aviso ‘’Hela’’, to visit his grandmother ..” or any similar phrasing?
    • How does "Kaiser Friedrich III and the aviso Hela were sent to escort the Kaiser's yacht Hohenzollern" sound?
      • Better, but I've added a little to it directly in the article (see here). -- Euryalus (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Last sentence – no need for comma after “return”
    • Fixed.
Service history (1901 grounding)

First paragraph:

  • Suggest removing “the” before upcoming joint Army-Navy maneuvers” , because it implies we the reader already know about them.
    • Good catch.

Last paragraph

  • Would be interesting (but by no means essential) to know why the lightship was out of position.
    • Unfortunately Hildebrand et al. don't go into detail about the results of the investigation, and none of the contemporary reports I've seen do either.
      • OK, thanks for looking.
Service history (1902-1903)

Last paragraph:

  • Is “regatta” the right word? The wikilinked article suggests it is an event for sailing vessels or at best small powered craft, not battleships. Or have I misunderstood the role this vessel played, and “taking part” means something more ceremonial?
    • Yeah, basically the major navies liked to show off their newest ships at these big sailing events - is there some way you'd like to see that clarified?
      • In a moment of BRD I've changed "participated" to "were present at." Might be too passive, feel free to change to something else if preferred.
Service history (1904-1914)

First paragraph:

  • Sentence beginning “On 1 October …” seems a bit long. Any way to break this into two?
    • Yeah, that's a bit unwieldy - see if how I split it works.
Overall

A great article, thanks for the opportunity to read this through. All of the above are very minor, and from the view of a decided non-expert in twentieth century ships. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • No spot checks done
  • Need ampersands in the refs to match the format in the footnotes
    • Done
  • Gröner is volume 1 of a two-volume set.
    • Added
  • Subsection headers in the Notes section should be ordinary level 3 headers, not simply bolded.
    • Fixed.
  • What state or country is Annapolis in?
    • I've stopped putting state/country info, as I think the city is sufficient.
  • Comma after Washington
    • Fixed. Thanks Sturm.
  • References are known to me and are highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

comments[edit]

  • been a while since I reviewed a feature class article, and this is a pleasure to read.
  • Sentences like this: After the maneuvers ended, Kaiser Friedrich III was replaced as the deputy commander's flagship by Kaiser Wilhelm II, though she remained in the I Squadron. could also be worded After the maneuvers ended Kaiser Wilhelm II replaced Kaiser Friedrich III as the deputy commander's flagship.... Just is a little more active. Presumably she was a more modern ship?
    • That sounds fine to me. My general thought was to keep Kaiser Friedrich III the center of the narrative, and so accepted a bit of passive voice as a result, but it's fine to go the other direction.
  • is "disembarked the landing force" considered correct? the landing force disembarked at....? where the landing force disembarked? the landing force disembarked at...I think under those conditions it needs an object.
    • Changed to "...day, where the landing force disembarked. The ships then proceeded..."
  • continued on to.... repetitive. continued to...
    • Just to clarify, you mean remove the "on"?
  • yes, remove on.
  • 1901 grounding is the best section. Question about the men with injuries. Is it 3 men suffered serious injuries, one of whom died?
    • Yes, that's right - would it be clearer if stated that way?
  • yes.  :)
  • here are some suggestions to tighten the prose. As always feel free to revert. I'm just thinking a few shorter sentences and a little less repetition. auntieruth (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • then still being designed.... then still in design? then still under design?
    • Hmm, this I'm not so sure about.
  • same routine of training? You start the previous section with periodic maintenance...
    • How does adding "as in previous years" work?
  • do all years start with a training exercise? or is a training exercise just part of annual preparations? is the beginning of the year in January (as in calendar year), or...? here are some suggestions.
  • Kaiser Friedrich III was assigned to the "hostile" force, and was first tasked with preventing the "German" squadron from passing through the Great Belt in the Baltic. was assigned, was first tasked....Assigned to the "hostile" force, KFIII first prevented and second... Just seemed like there is an abundance of passive auxiliary verbs
    • I think I've fixed this now - have a look and see if that works.
  • I'll be happy to support this though! auntieruth (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review, Ruth! Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Naruto Uzumaki[edit]

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

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

Doing the Source review:

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

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

General prose review[edit]

  • The article is well-written and is among the best-written articles I have seen for an anime character. However, there are currently a few minor issues I have seen: "Dub" should not be capitalized in the sentence "she decided to look the show up and felt the release of the English Dub would be popular". Also, there are a few inconsistencies in the reception section, such as switching between "ANN" and "A.N.N.". Carl Kimlinger's full name is mentioned twice when his full name should probably only be mentioned on the first mention. But these are easily resolvable problems and once these are fixed I'll be happy to give this a pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice work, this is a pass for the prose review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@1989: Also, a suggestion: if the article gets promoted, I suggest you nominate the article for Today's Featured Article for either October 3 (the anime's 15th anniversary) or October 10 (Naruto's birthday). It's up to you what date to use. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I plan to get Naruto to FA after this one ends. I already got it to GA, and it had a peer review, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. With that being said, I'll be nominating this article for TFA on the character's birthday, if this passes. MCMLXXXIX 09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I been going over the article few times, trying to find any issues with it. Seeing that I can't find any problems with it, I will go on and Support this nomination. - AffeL (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support I went over the article a couple of times too, and I couldn't find anything wrong with it. I checked all of the sources I could access, but found no issues there. This article is comprehensive enough without going into too much detail over lore, and it is well written. JAGUAR  10:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by 122.108.141.214
Comments by 122.108.141.214
  • Comment - has the scholarly literature about Naruto been surveyed? The following book has an entire Part 2 covering "Naruto as a Cultural Crossroads", of six chapters.
  • Berndt, Jacqueline; Kümmerling-Meibauer, Bettina, eds. (2013). Manga's Cultural Crossroads. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 9781134102839. 

--122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Upgrading to Oppose - the scholarly literature on Naruto (the series) has not been surveyed for criticism of Naruto (the character), and so I believe this article does not meet criteria 1c of the Featured Article criteria, where ""a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" has been undertaken. Without any investigation of scholarly literature about Naruto, this article cannot be considered "well-researched". --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: What is they talking about? MCMLXXXIX 01:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. I believe the editor is saying that they've located scholarly literature about the subject of the article. They are opposing over their concern that the article cannot be considered well-researched if you have not consulted scholarly literature. --Laser brain (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've located scholarly literature about the parent series the main character comes from, but the rest is correct. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've requested this text through an interlibrary loan to make it available to 1989. It may take a week or so to receive it, and further time for 1989 to incorporate relevant material into the article. Please hold for a bit. ~ Rob13Talk 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The citation for Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions seems to be incomplete as it doesn't have the chapter title.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The ISBN is fine, it's available on Amazon. MCMLXXXIX 10:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the older ISBN doesn't show up as being valid when I search for it in Google Books. The citation could still be improved by adding the book chapter title, though. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't originally add the citation, so I can't help with that. MCMLXXXIX 11:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it was fixed. MCMLXXXIX 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it was easy enough to do. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • On the topic of scholarly literature, I'm assisting 1989 with a lit review. There are extremely limited English-language academic sources, however. Some Japanese-language sources are available, but I don't think it's particularly reasonable to expect a reviewer to conduct research into sources from another language when high-quality sources are available in their own language. So far, I've identified one additional academic source in addition to the source provided by the IP above. ~ Rob13Talk 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - that's a great step in the right direction. Where have you been searching? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been searching through my institution's search engine. They do a pretty good job of interfacing with the various databases and print resources I have access to, but I will check a few good databases manually to verify there isn't more out there. I can't reveal the institution for obvious reasons, but I will say it has access through its print resources, databases, or relationships to other libraries to almost any resource present online or in the United States. I volunteer quite a bit at WP:RX. To the nominator's credit, the first source I found for him was actually already referenced in the article (Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions). This is an academic source edited by a professor at St. Thomas University. The cited chapter is by another professor at the same institution. Both have PhDs. ~ Rob13Talk 22:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Is the citation for Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions accurate? I raised some issues with it above and tried to fix it myself. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
"Big Heroes on the Small Screen: Naruto and the Struggle Within" is indeed the chapter title. ~ Rob13Talk 22:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@1989: I've sent you two more articles that you may find helpful. They're related to Naruto in the context of religion. I didn't read fully, but at least one also talks about Naruto's emerging role as a noteworthy example of a Japanese literary "hero" figure. ~ Rob13Talk 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've checked DOAJ and found

  • Born, Christopher A. (1 April 2010). "In the Footsteps of the Master: Confucian Values in Anime and Manga". ASIANetwork Exchange: A Journal for Asian Studies in the Liberal Arts. 17 (2): 39. doi:10.16995/ane.206. 

I've done a quick add, but a more in-depth reading of it might prove useful to the article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's one of the ones I sent him, just for the record. Didn't realize it was open access when I accessed it. ~ Rob13Talk 23:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It could really use the eyes of someone who knows Naruto inside and out. @BU Rob13: - could you please post up the citation for any other sources you've found here? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a time sink for me. If you create an account and email me, I'm happy to send you the sources. Otherwise, I'll leave it to the nominator to type up the cites when adding to the article. ~ Rob13Talk 04:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate that - this is more of a time sink than I knew when I first asked, too. Are there lots of sources, then? Just so that people have an idea of how much (or little) there is out there. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
There's relatively little that isn't already written in the article. A couple sources I've found are already incorporated in the article. I found a couple new sources focusing on religious aspects (including the one you cited above). I'm also still working to access the original source you pointed out. ~ Rob13Talk 15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Rob - it's helpful to know that the measure of the literature has largely been taken, but there's still a couple more potential sources that could be added. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Such as? MCMLXXXIX 21:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Rob has said that he's emailed them to you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, you already used one of the articles he sent me, so I have to use the second one, and the other one he's planning to send me. Besides those two articles, there's nothing left to look for. MCMLXXXIX 21:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Because I don't know Naruto as well as you do, it would be helpful if you could look at the 'Confucian values' article to make sure that the important points have been used. It's encouraging to think that the measure of the literature has largely been taken. I also have some nitpicks below about translating source titles and "Jinchuriki" - will you please address them? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll address them tomorrow. MCMLXXXIX 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks great! I love the work you've done adding Plumb's kitsune criticism to the article, and getting more of the point of the Confucian values article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To add a nitpick to the sourcing section, the Japanese web sources could benefit from a more liberal use of |trans_title=. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick again, but I found a couple more - could you please add translated titles to these? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To add a nitpick to the prose section, "Jinchuriki" is used twice, but never defined. It is not used at all in the main Naruto series article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The new additions might need a bit of copyediting - I've heard it said that 'claim' can be value-laden, and I'm not certain what the seal is a catalyst for - Naruto's growing maturity? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've also accidentally deleted something I just couldn't understand. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Accidentally? Do you want me to readd it? MCMLXXXIX 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I deleted it so I could see what I was doing when adding in the text that I did. If you think an important point has been lost, please reword it when adding it back in. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I added more stuff. MCMLXXXIX 13:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What does "Naruto's character development is related to a modern American hero, but became a higher figure in the series accidentally to build and restore peace" mean? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence. MCMLXXXIX 23:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's clearer. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I can no longer oppose this nomination on the grounds that it does not reflect the available scholarly literature. Well done! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Will support if you can explain where this line "In Road to Ninja: Naruto the Movie, an alternate version of the character named Menma appears as the main antagonist of the film." is cited. other than this, great job! Eddie891 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I linked the article, hope that's good enough. MCMLXXXIX 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Support. (I apologize if I ask or say stupid things. I am still figuring things out on Wikipedia)Eddie891 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support From a perspective of someone who is familiar with anime, but does not do articles about them, I find the article to be easy to understand to new readers. I also checked for any disambiguations and connection issues, but none are found. Good job! Erick (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Congrats on doing a great job here, I fully agree that this article is ready for a FA. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: This is looking like it is getting close, but I'd like a little more commentary. I don't think we have had an in depth look at the prose. We are fine on 1b and 1c (comprehensive and well researched) based on the above comments, but I'd feel happier if someone could give the prose (1a) a little going over. Additionally, although we have a source review above, no-one has checked the sources for reliability and formatting. As I believe this is the nominators first FAC, we would also require a spot check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. I'm also not convinced about the image review as we have a lot of FU images. I also believe that the image of Hiroshi Matsuyama in costume could be a problem as the issue has been raised before that costumes can be copyright, which makes cosplay images problematic. But I'm no expert, so I'd like another image reviewer to just check this out. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the sources are passable since I was the user who made it GA. Sites like anime now are often cited by anime news network. On the other hand, I have mixed thoughts about using crunchyroll due to previos feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Not seeing a strong enough rationale to include both File:NarutoUzumakiKishimoto.jpg and File:NarutoUzumakiPartIIKishimoto.jpg - we would need justification why it's necessary for the reader to see both. Similarly, there should be further explanation of why we need the sketched version (File:Adultnaruto.jpg) in addition to the fully realized version. These FURs are pretty minimal.
  • File:Naruto_Shiki_Fujin.svg: what is the copyright status of this design?
  • See here regarding the cosplay issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't understand. How strong do you want the rationales to be? Is the reason wanting readers to know what the character looks like not enough in the Purpose of Use section? I expanded it a little bit. The third image may not be needed, as it doesn't really provide context.
  • It seems that the author made a replica of the seal with SVG software. It was just recently added to the article.
  • The cosplay image shouldn't really be an issue IMO, unless you think otherwise. MCMLXXXIX 03:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The "primary means of visual identification" argument is useful for a single image, usually the lead/infobox image - it's not clear to me why it would be essential to see the different ages.
  • Okay, but what is the copyright status of the design itself?
  • I think it well could be, although as the link indicates the matter is complicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tintor2: Would it be better to have only one image of what the character looks like, and I could update the lead image to his adult form?
  • Isnt there by any chance an image that has both parte 1 and 2 Narutos. I would definitely agree to remove his young adult sketch considering he has few appearances.Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It's derivative work, it's a reproduction of the seal in SVG form.
  • Would you like me to remove the images referenced in your second and third bullet points? MCMLXXXIX 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What if the article described what the character looked like in Part II, would it be necessary to keep the image for context? MCMLXXXIX 15:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand it's a derivative work - the point of a derivative work though is that it's derived from something, and that something has a copyright status.
  • If the changes between the two versions are significant, and you can source content that describes the significance of these changes, then that could justify the use of both images. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It was derived from the manga, which is copyrighted. I'll remove the image.
  • Do you mean like conception or what I said above? MCMLXXXIX 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I added material, and changed the rationale for the Part II image.
  • I removed the derivative work, and the cosplay image. -- MCMLXXXIX 11:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Do you want to continue this image review? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The remaining images are workable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have been giving this a good read and prose wise, I don't find any issues with it. The article on the character was quite an interesting read. You have my Support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I narrowly want to comment on the cosplay issue. The Supreme Court ruled just today in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that the relevant test for copyright is that the useful article (e.g. the costume) must (a) be conceivable as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and; (b) that work of art would be eligible for copyright on its own, separate from the useful article. In this case, the costume itself is made up of simple geometric shapes and colors, and so it is not protectable. That means the clothing itself fails the second prong of that test. As for the head band and face paint, that's likely a copyrightable design feature of the Naruto character, but the principle of de minimis likely applies here. This is especially true because, as rendered on the page, the design on the headband is not clearly visible. (That may sound like a fair use argument, but it is not. See c:COM:DM.) So the short answer is that I do not think the image is an issue. There will need to be a broader discussion on Commons about what this ruling means for useful articles. We may well need to dump a large number of our images based on this ruling. ~ Rob13Talk 05:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I removed the image. -- MCMLXXXIX 08:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Source review from Jaguar

I'm just going to skim through the sources themselves to see if they're all formatted correctly etc, and then afterwards I'll start verifying:

  • Ref 2 - is Naruto the name of the website? Shouldn't Cartoon Network be in the website field and Time Warner in the publisher field?
  • Ref 7 is not archived
  • Ref 79 says "Viz Video" but the url goes to madman.com
  • Ref 99, 115, 116 and 117 needs IGN in the website field and Ziff Davis as its publisher

Those were all of the minor issues I could find regarding formatting. I'll start spotchecking the refs now and will leave the comments later as I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. JAGUAR  13:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jaguar: Ref 2 is not a website. Cite web and Cite episode are different. The ref cites the episode that the information is presented.
  • I fixed the other issues you had. MCMLXXXIX 13:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just spent an hour spotchecking the sources and couldn't find any discrepancies at all, so I'll support on the sourcing side of things. Overall this is a well pieced article. JAGUAR  15:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm still not seeing that anyone gave the prose a last check. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes I did notice it, but I was hoping for a little more feedback than a one-line comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Phantasmagoria (video game)[edit]

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

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

Comments from Indrian[edit]

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

Plot[edit]
  • "who had five wives who all died mysteriously" - We can come up with a better verb than "had."
    • Changed the part to "whose five wives all died mysteriously." Does that work better? GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hoping to find an inspiration for her next novel, Adrienne begins having nightmares immediately upon moving into her new home" - As written, this sentence is describing how Adrienne deliberately induced nightmares to find inspiration for her next book.
    • Changed "begins" to "starts". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The problem was that the introductory clause is linked to the action verb of the sentence, so it reads as "because she wanted inspiration for her novel, she decides to induce nightmares." I took the liberty of rewriting this myself to avoid this connection.
  • "culminating in a controversial scene in which he rapes Adrienne" - I don't think culminating works here, as the culmination of his bad behavior is really when he starts killing everybody.
    • Changed "culminating" to "resulting". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Meanwhile, Harriet, fearing for her safety, decides to leave with Cyrus as Don becomes more abusive and erratic" - Meanwhile is not the proper transition here, as it denotes something happening at the same time as the events of the previous paragraph when it is actually something that happens later.
    • Removed "Meanwhile". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Writing[edit]
  • "Williams had previously created suspenseful murder and crimes stories in her earlier mystery games, Mystery House and the Laura Bow series" - the use of "suspenseful" feels like unnecessary puffery to me.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "She felt the horror genre had not yet been properly explored in computer games yet, and that most attempts were just "a lot of hack and slash (where) the whole point seems to be to kill everyone and blow them away" - This is the first instance of what will become a recurring theme in this review: this is Williams talking to a house organ specifically to promote her game. As such, this may merely be sales puffery. I would take it out.
    • Just take out the sentence or should I take out everything involving the house organ? GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64:I think it's okay to use InterAction for basic facts like plot points, gameplay features, development time, release dates, etc. Where I would be wary of using it is when it analyzes how Phantasmagoria compares to other games or proclaims how distinctive or wonderful any of its features are, as this material may take liberties since the primary purpose of the magazine is to entice people to buy the game. Indrian (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Removed the sentence. GamerPro64 16:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams found it stressful working on two major games at once and said she had "some difficulty keeping both games in my head", but felt each received her undivided attention during the most crucial times in their respective developments." - Well she would feel that way, right? Is she going to say she neglected her games? This biased opinion does not really add any understanding to the creative process of the game.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "She said having a female lead in Phantasmagoria was not a ploy to attract female gamers, but rather felt like the correct choice for the game." - If she just chose a female protagonist because she wanted a female protagonist then there is really nothing to see here. This sentence does not really add to the article.
    • You got a point. Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Casting[edit]
  • "Morsell said appreciated that her character was intelligent and not a typical horror film heroine, saying: "She doesn't do incredibly stupid things. You don't see her screaming in her underwear. The character isn't about decoration. She's a very real person." - This is just an actor promoting a project. I would not consider that source a reliable read of her feelings on the project.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Homb compared acting in Phantasmagoria to working in an entirely new medium, and called it "one of the best experiences I've ever had in the entire entertainment business"." - Same as above but even moreso. Lots of actors talk about how great their experiences were when promoting a project, which was the entire point of the source in question.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Unlike Homb, Miano primarily played antagonists throughout his career; he estimated "90 percent of the time, I play the bad guy." - This quote does not really add to our understanding of the subject.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general note, I have examined several FA-quality film articles, and virtually none of them list extensive CVs for cast members. This info seems excessive here, especially for the actors that have their own articles on Wikipedia.
    • What does CV stand for? GamerPro64 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64:Sorry, CV is short for Curriculum Vitae, which is basically a fancy way of saying résumé. The article includes a lot of prior roles for each actor, and going into that kind of detail appears atypical for FA articles on similar topics like films. This is especially unnecessary for the actors that have their own Wikipedia articles. Indrian (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I get it now. I trimmed down the section a lot. How does it look now? GamerPro64 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Looks pretty good at a quick glance. I forgot to respond to your question about the analyst quote below, which I have now done. Once that final thing is addressed, I will give the whole article another look. Indrian (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Filming[edit]
  • "with the average scene taking about an hour to shoot, while others were significantly longer or shorter" and "The average filming day began at 6 a.m. with setting up the studio, with actors coming in at 7 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. for make-up calls. An hour-long pre-production meeting would detail what would be shot that day to ensure all necessary backgrounds and props were ready. Shooting would begin around 8 a.m. and conclude at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m." - So in other words, it followed a similar filming schedule to any other special-effects driven movie. This does not seem noteworthy and encompasses a level of minutiae not found in other FA-quality articles.
    • Removed those sentences. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Williams had no experience working with actors and feared it would be difficult due to "huge Hollywood egos", but she instead found the actors to be professional and hardworking" - Again, this may well be true, but it is drawn from a promotional book. These always go out of their way to emphasize camaraderie and harmony and are not really reliable for facts like these.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "They normally had two grips on set, but needed six for this scene, and Wolfe used friends who were visiting from out of town to help throw the props from ladders, boxes and scaffolding" - This feels like an unnecessary level of detail.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "At one point in the film, Carno lies in the hospital bed after having just survived a fire, his face wrapped in bandages with blood leaking through. During filming, Miano spontaneously sat up and started singing Al Jolson songs, making the crew laugh hysterically." - That's a cute story, but again seems out of step with maintaining a summary style.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Doberman Pinscher simply barked behind a fence during his scene, and was trained to bark on command using different hand signals. The scene with the rats simply involved them running along a wall in a basement, which they were trained with to do using food." - These are standard practices not unique to this game, so it again seems like an unnecessary detail.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Effects[edit]
  • "He said the game reminded him of working on one of his earliest movies, the slasher film The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)." - Another extraneous detail taken from a promotional source.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Morsell had to have her face covered in plaster when the model of her head was created, and she experienced some anxieties during the process, saying it felt "like being buried alive".[87] Robert Miano had similar feelings of anxiety when a model of his body was created, which was used in the game for a scene when Carno is set on fire. Miano had to sit on a chair for hours as the crew put plaster all of his body and face, during which he had to breathe through straws in his nostrils." - More extraneous anecdotes of a common type for actors having plaster molds made of themselves.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Release[edit]
  • "and one of the first horror games from any company written specifically for adults" - So says Sierra's house organ as it tries to promote the game. It is not a reliable source for this type of information.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Phantasmagoria was the first game to get an "M" rating for "mature" audiences" - No it wasn't. When Night Trap was released on the 32x in 1994 it boasted an M rating. Same with the DOS version of Mortal Kombat II in 1994. I think there were a few others as well. This is why house organs can be of limited utility as sources.
    • Removed. Really common knowledge for people who know about video game history. Also had to rework the part of the paragraph so let me know how it looks. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sales[edit]
  • "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote: "Never before has a new product jumped to number one on the charts so quickly." - I highly doubt that, and I would certainly never trust a company organ to tell me the truth about that.
    • Actually found the issue online. Page 25. The quote isn't the same as what InterAction wrote, though. But would the InterAction work as a source here? GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64:It still feels a little promotional in nature, but I assume InterAction has a decent handle on how the game did relative to Sierra's own releases. I would be okay with the magazine being used as a source for the claim that Phantasmagoria jumped to number one faster than any other Sierra game, but clearly the bit about fastest in computer game history is marketing hype rather than fact. Indrian (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
        • @Indrian:I changed the sentence to "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote that no other Sierra game topped game charts as quickly as Phantasmagoria did." Does that work? GamerPro64 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite coming out in August" - Games achieve most of their sales in the first couple of months after release, so there is nothing surprising about a game coming out in August selling better than a bunch of games that came out in January or some other earlier month.
    • Removed from sentence. GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Reviews[edit]
  • "The violent content drew a great deal of attention, with Lee S. Isgur of Jefferies & Co., a global investment bank that followed the computer game industry, wrote, "It's probably one of the bloodiest games ever."" - This is a statement from an analyst and is not part of a critical review of the game. It may fit in the article somewhere, but it does not belong here.
    • I agree with you with it not being relevant in the "Reviews" section but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Would the "Release" or "Legacy" section work? GamerPro64 21:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64:Sorry I missed this one. Isgur is already mentioned in the controversy section, so that seems a natural place to work it in. Indrian (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay I moved it to that section and re-tooled it. GamerPro64 01:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Legacy[edit]
  • "While happy with the game, she said she did not expect to make another horror game again, saying, "It's not really my area"." - Yeah and after finishing Time Zone in 1982 she said she would never make another adventure game again. This statement really has little probative value.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

  • @GamerPro64: It looks like all my concerns have been addressed. I have also made a few edits here and there to improve the flow of the article. There is just one more thing I would like to see before supporting: The book High Score by Rusel DeMaria and Johnny Wilson includes a little bit of info on the game and brings up two points that I believe are of interest for comprehensiveness. One is that the game originally contained nudity as well as violence and gore, but they decided to take it out. The other is that during post-production Roberta Williams became an absolute perfectionist and kept sending back footage that did not fully integrate the actors with the blue screen backgrounds so as to avoid a "halo effect" like that found in 7th Guest. If you do not have access to that source, I would be happy to add the info myself. Indrian (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't have any real way to access the source unless I buy it. You can add the info if you want. GamerPro64 03:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I'll go ahead and add it in the near future, but I see no reason to wait to offer my support. Indrian (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I've read this through a couple of times now and no prose clangers are jumping out at me...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would imagine that the image in the infobox would need an ALT description. Same goes for the images in the body of the article.
  • Should you use Adrienne’s full name in the first mention in the lead?
    • I guess not. Removed it. GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64: I was actually wondering if you should put the character's full name in the first mention in the lead. I think it is fine to put the actor there. I have adjusted this in the lead, but feel free to revert it if you prefer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
        • That makes more sense. GamerPro64 18:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you provide more of a context for the final sentence in the final paragraph of the “Gameplay” section? It reads like a reception of the game, but I am assuming that it is someone involved in the production (if not Williams herself) who said this.
    • Just a reminder that this is the last comment left unaddressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I was getting around to it. You don't have to rush me. I honestly don't know what to do with that sentence as Hunter Kahn wrote most of the information. GamerPro64 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I was just trying to help; no need to be rude about it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I looked into it and it was from a Computer Gaming World writer. GamerPro64 17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the following sentence (Lee had mostly done theater work the in), eliminate “the”.
  • I think twenty-five in “Twenty-five professional actors” should be written out as numerals according to the policy on numbering. You write out 12 as numerals in the following section.
    • Does that apply here since its the beginning of a sentence? GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @GamerPro64: You are correct. I apologize for overlooking this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The “Media data and Non-free use rationale” summary needs to be completed for the screenshots.
  • @Hunter Kahn: @GamerPro64: Everything else looks great and I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • The words "announce(d)" and "release(d)" are overused in the Release section.
    • Trimmed the usage of the words down in the section. GamerPro64 17:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need image and source reviews, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I already made the request. Been waiting four days. GamerPro64 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that, it's been a long week! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Alan Shepard[edit]

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

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

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your edits. Just one more thing:

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

Image review

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

John

  • What does "Status Deceased" add? --John (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    It conforms to the consensus at template:Infobox astronaut and makes all the astronaut infoboxes consistent. It was added to the infobox in 2007. You changed the status code from "deceased" to "dead" in the documentation (but not the example) per WP:EUPHEMISM in 2014. Another editor opined in 2015 that "dead" doesn't add much, and should be discouraged, but the documentation didn't change. I have removed the status card; but the discussion really belongs over there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Huh, I'd forgotten that. You mean there are loads of articles on dead astronauts with a template helpfully adding that as well as being dead they are also "deceased"? Gosh. Consistency isn't always a good thing! --John (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

  • The following sentence under Mercury Seven is unclear: "Since this [32 qualified candidates] was more than expected, NASA decided not to bother with the remaining candidates, selecting six astronauts instead of the twelve originally planned." Huh?? Why did they decide to select fewer astronauts, when they had a higher than expected qualification rate? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Replaced the second clause with these two explanatory sentences: The degree of interest also indicated that far fewer would drop out during training than anticipated, which would result in training astronauts who would not be required to fly Project Mercury missions. It was therefore decided to cut the number of astronauts selected to just six. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I've read to the end of naval service and done some minor, very revertible copy-edits. Just a couple of queries so far, more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not convinced we need as much about his family, particularly his father, as we get.
  • The paragraph on Fighter Squadron 193 cuts rather abruptly away from Shepard, and the relevance is not obvious for a sentence or three. Can we make this a little smoother? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Sure. I have re-worded it to start with Shepard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaning Support: This is a rather marvellous article and brings the Shepard alive rather nicely. Just a few nit-picks. The only reason I'm not (yet) supporting outright is that I think the article needs a touch more context, as detailed below. Nothing major, just a sentence here and there to aid the reader. But great work in any case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • "That evening, Shepard discussed the day's events with fellow naval aviators Jim Lovell, Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra.": It would be nice for a sentence to say who these people were to stop readers clicking away from the article.
    I said that they were fellow naval aviators. Added "all of whom would eventually become astronauts". So sad that their names are not household words Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the article would benefit from a little background on the space race: not much, just a few sentences to put all this in context. Similarly, I've a pretty good idea what Mercury Seven was, but a brief introduction to it and its intention would benefit the reader who doesn't want to follow links. I think it is better if a FA is self-contained in this way, and it wouldn't take much writing. For example, we say "James E. Webb announced that Mercury had accomplished all its goals and no more missions would be flown", but we don't really indicate what its goals were.
    I have written a paragraph on the Space Race. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly, a little more on Gagarin; my understanding is that it was ridiculously close as to who would get into space first, and that there was a lot of disappointment at NASA. Could we reflect this briefly?
    Added a couple of sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ditto what Project Gemini was.
    Added a sentence on what Project Gemini was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "There was no known cure, but in about 20 percent of cases the condition went away by itself.": Is this still the case? Judging by his surgical cure, it is not so maybe "There was then no known cure..."
    As of June 2016 it is. It is just that the article is written in the past tense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of the "Awards and Honours" section, as it looks a distant cousin of "In popular culture" sections, but that is just my opinion, is not based on FA criteria, and can be thoroughly ignored and even dismissively waved away.
    Sure, we can do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We mention his "philandering" but don't really discuss his marriage after its beginning. Did his wife find out? Do we know anything else about their marriage? How long did he carry on ... er... carrying on?
    Sure. Added a paragraph at the start of "Later life" Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Happy to switch to full support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth[edit]

Support on prose
  • Leaning support for this excellent article. I made a small number of minor edits, which you are welcome to revert if you find them wrong-headed. I have two remaining nitpicks, as follows, both in the Project Gemini: Chief astronaut section:
  • "An X-ray found a lump on his thyroid, and on January 17, 1964, surgeons at Hermann Hospital removed 20 percent of it." − Accidental ambiguity. This might mean 20 percent of the thyroid or 20 percent of the lump. I assume it means 20 percent of the thyroid, but it would be good to clarify in the text.
    Yes, it was 20 per cent of his thyroid. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "This included monitoring the development and implementation of effective training programs to assure the flight readiness of personnel for crew assignments on manned space flights, and furnishing pilot evaluations applicable to the design, construction, and operations of spacecraft systems and related equipment. He also provided qualitative scientific and engineering observations to facilitate overall mission planning, formulation of feasible operational procedures, and selection and conduct of specific experiments for each flight." − This is the one place in the article where the jargon bothered me. Could this be compressed or rewritten in plainer English? Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It now reads smoothly. Happy to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Ian[edit]

I was planning to perform a full copyedit and review but time's been against me and it seems to have attracted a good deal of commentary anyway. One thing absent that I thought you might consider including is Tom Wolfe's view of Shepard's personality, a duality Wolfe characterised as "Smilin' Al" vs. the "Icy Commander". It might fit nicely around the "mood of the day" bit -- I can supply a ref to my copy of The Right Stuff if needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Tks -- I think the quote you added from Wolfe will make clear to the uninitiated exactly what he was talking about.
One other thing that caught my eye on a quick read-through, re. Moon Shot "generated some controversy for use of a staged photo purportedly showing Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon"... The cited source draws attention to the photo being composited but doesn't seem to mention a "controversy" over it, unless I missed something. Also I think that in mentioning this you should add that the composite was created because there was only video footage of the actual shots, else it reads to me as though there's a question as to whether he really hit those golf balls at all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Tks, that's great; the only thing is I still don't see where the source clearly supports the idea that the compositing "generated controversy" -- to me it seems like a fairly matter-of-fact discussion of how and why the composite photo was created. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted that claim. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think I can support without going through the article word-by-word and I don't want to hold things up while I try and find time for that -- based on the resolution of all my concerns here and in the source review, plus the depth of commentary by other reviewers, I certainly have no objection to promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Do we have a location for Shayler?
    London. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sources otherwise accurately formatted.
  • Ref 4 is to an email on Rootsweb, and the correspondent is not sure that Shepard is defended from Richard Warren, nor does she seem particularly authoritative. As the information is already cited to a book, why are we using this source, which can hardly be a RS?
    Already have one, so removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes Spaceflight 101 a reliable source?
    Replaced with newspaper source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We have " This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration." at the bottom of the article. Can I check, what material does this refer to in the article?
    Yes, using Earwig's Copyvio Detector Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No other issues that I spotted. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I took some notes for a source review a little while ago but have only now found time to write them up here...

  • I had the same thought as Sarastro re. Rootsweb, so glad the other ref suffices.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Page number formatting in the citations all looks fine and the links are all live.
  • Typo: "UNited States Navy".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Book refs use both "NASA" and the full name, perhaps go for one or the other.
    Standised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • FN136 just seems to take us to a picture -- is the path accurate?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    Um, so we're using a picture of the lettuce on his chest to cite awards and honours? I would've thought we could do better than that, and if not we could just drop the pretty pictures and leave mention/referencing of his major awards to elsewhere in the article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    All the uncommon awards are already in the article. I felt that the picture was more definitive about the common ones. I've removed the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You spell out a state like Ohio but not Utah or Colorado -- again should be consistent and I think best spell out for the non-US reader.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • FN138 could probably be formatted with a template for consistency with others.
    It is using {{imdb character}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • One other query from me regarding the PD material, and it does not affect this source review, more simple curiosity. Is there any reason why we didn't paraphrase that source? I know this is perfectly acceptable, within the rules, etc, but it just strikes me as odd that this couldn't be rephrased. It is only a few phrases, after all. But no matter, and it doesn't affect any of my review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Done. It has an Earwig score of 42.9%, which is almost entirely composed of proper nouns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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


Comments from Aoba47
  • The official website link in the “External links” section is dead and needs to found through a website archive. Same goes for the link in the infobox.
  • Done by another user.
  • Makes sense, as it was probably added when the website was still active. This should be an easy fix as I would imagine you can find an archived url of this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • My mistake; I meant the fixing of the link was done by another user here. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You use the transition: “For each question answered…” twice in close proximity and I would suggest changing one for variety.
  • Done.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase “fell through” in the “Production” section is rather informal and I would recommend using a stronger word choice.
  • Done.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The “Production” section seems rather short. Is there any more information about the production of this show? This may not be possible, but I just want to double-check.
  • I will check again. Bible Challenge had an actual book published with behind-the-scenes information; The Chase did not, which is perhaps why there is not much info beyond renewal and premiere dates.
  • That makes sense. If you cannot find any more information, then it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest revising the second paragraph of the “Production” section, as it seems to read rather like a list of dates rather than a cohesive narrative. I would work on presenting the information in a more engaging manner if possible.
  • I would combine the two paragraphs of the “Critical reception” subsection as they are both rather short independently.
  • Done
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Are there any more reviews of the show? I understand if it is not possible to get more information on this, but I just want to double-check.
  • I was a bit surprised by this too...I'll give it one more look but I doubt there are any I haven't come across.
  • That makes sense. If you cannot find any more information, then it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please links Game Show Network the first time that you use it in the body of the article. Also, spell out the network the first time you use it in the body of the article and put the acronym in parenthesis next to it so the future use of the acronym makes sense for the reader. Put the acronym in parenthesis in the lead too.
  • Done.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you really need a separate subsection for accolades as it is only one paragraph? I would combine this under the umbrella of the “Critical reception” subsection.
  • Done.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is Labbett referred to as “the Beast”? The article does not provide a clear answer for this.
  • Added explanation for the nickname the first time Labbett is mentioned in the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have made some edits to the article here. Feel free to revert them if you do not agree.
  • Looks good to me.
  • Thank you. Just wanted to make sure with you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You only reference the rotating panel from other versions of the game show in the lead, but not in the body of the article. Would it be beneficial to include this comparison in the body of the article as well, ideally with a source to prevent accusations of original research? I also approach leads as including only information covered in the body of the article so the omission of this bit of information in the body of the article seems odd to me.
Rewrote the lead and removed the OR; feel free to tweak my post-midnight writing if you so desire. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Bcschneider53: Overall, great work with the article. Good luck with your work on game shows. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, could you possible look at my FAC too? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thank you for picking this up after Bible Challenge. I'm very busy with schoolwork right now (I was actually working on a research paper for The Tempest when I saw this and have four papers due this week) so I may not be able to get to this immediately. No promises, but if I can find the time, I'll try to take a look at your FAC, or you can let me know if you would like any other help (perhaps a GAN or something?). Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your message and no worries. Good luck with all of your schoolwork (your research paper on The Tempest sounds interesting). And don't worry about it if you do not have the time. I enjoyed reading through your article and I hope that I could be some help. Cheers! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Took care of some of the simple fixes. Will look into the others later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I think it may be done? I'm off to get some rest now as it's after midnight here on the eastern US coast. Also, I have an FLC and GAN right now that need attention (not to mention real life work) so I'm afraid I won't have time to review myself in the immediate future. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Everything looks good for me; good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • I think an explanation of what a "chase" is needs to be earlier. I didn't understand it until the third paragraph of the gameplay section, which is too late. I'd suggest an early explanatory sentences that says something like 'A key element of the show is a "chase", in which the chaser and the contestant each answer questions, with the contestant starting with a disadvantage, and the chaser attempting to catch up." This might need to be as early as the second or third sentence to explain the concept before the reader gets too confused.
  • Can we get a fair use screenshot of the gameboard? That would help explain sentences like "For each question the contestant answers correctly, the prize money earned moves one step closer to the team bank".
  • How about a brief summary of the UK show -- date it began, popularity, any significant differences from the US show? I don't think you need more than a couple of sentences, but since it was based on the UK show I think a little more information is warranted.
  • There appears to be a board game based on The Chase, but I'm not sure if it's based on the UK or US version. If it's the US version, I think you should mention it.
  • Yes, the board game was for the UK version (I actually have a copy of it so I can confirm this is the case). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Presumably the app doesn't really have Labbett answering questions; there's some sort of simulation going on, right? I'd suggest rephrasing to clarify that.

That's it for a first pass. I think the prose needs a bit of work; I'll do a copyedit pass once the above points are taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)`

Reading through the gameplay I'm not convinced I fully understand. Here's what I think it's saying -- tell me if I have this right.

  • There are four players in a show -- three new contestants (i.e. they weren't on the previous week's show), and the chaser.
  • The first round has each contestant answering as many questions as they can for one minute. The chaser also does this, so all four players have some amount of money in their bank at the end of the four one-minute rounds. There's no competition between the players to answer any of these questions; they're all solo.
    Only the contestant competes in the first round, and is awarded $5,000 for each correct answer in the minute time period. The chaser then gives his two offers, so no, he does not do this. Once the contestant has selected which amount to play for, the chase is played, and the process repeats for all three contestants. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    The article currently says the Cash Builder round adds money to the team's bank, but does the chaser only chase the amount that each contestant won? E.g. If I win $40K, and the chaser doesn't catch me, and you then win $50K in the Cash Builder round, and the chaser catches you, the team bank only loses the $50K you won, right? So it's not really in the team bank until the chase is over? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    If you win $40K in the Cash Builder, that money gets placed on the gameboard five spaces away from the bank. The chaser then makes a higher and lower offer, say $90K and $20K. The contestant chooses which amount to play for. If he contestant wins the chase, s/he adds that money to the team bank. So yes, in your hypothetical situation, you would move on to the Final Chase, while I would be eliminated. Our team would have $40K in the bank (which was not added to the bank until you won your chase) with our third teammate still left to play. Hope this helps! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Once this first round is over, each contestant participates in a chase. The contestant is given two offers: one to play for more money and start further from the bank; the other to play for less money and start closer to the bank. If they don't accept either offer they are five spaces away; the offers are for four spaces and less money or six spaces and more money, but the chaser may also choose to make a super offer of seven spaces and even more money. This choice is at the chaser's discretion; the other two choices are always offered.
  • The chase then happens, with the displayed gameboard showing $90,000; after the chase starts presumably the other slots go blank. Is the red arrow the chaser? Does that move down as the chaser answers questions correctly?
  • Correct, the chaser's position is indicated by the red arrow; I'll clarify this. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The chaser doesn't have to overtake the contestant; they just need to get to the square the contestant is on, so the contestant presumably goes first. The default (five spaces) means that the chaser has to have three more right answers than the contestant before the contestant gets five right answers. The super offer would mean that the contestant has no room to manoeuvre -- if they make a single mistake the chaser can catch them. Is that right?
  • At the end of the three chases, contestants who were not caught advance to the Final Chase; if all were caught, then the three contestants choose one of themselves to play.
  • Correct. Incredibly rare (only happened in the cited episode), but yes, this is the case. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No additional money is added during the Final Chase; the money at stake is the sum of the individual banks of the contestants who made it to the Final Chase. The contestants get a head start of one space per contestant who reached the final round; if none won their chases, do they still get a head start of one space?
  • What's the choice between A and B? Do the teams know anything about each set of questions -- e.g. that the A questions are all about sports?
  • It's a random set. Nothing is known about it. Neither the chaser nor the contestants know what questions are in each set. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What does it mean to "pass a question"?
  • To say "pass" instead of giving an answer. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The teams move as far as they can, and then the chaser tries to catch them, except that an error by the chaser allows the team to try to answer that question and move further ahead (or push the chaser back a space).
  • Correct, a correct answer pushes the chaser back, unless the chaser is at zero, in which case the teams total increases by one space. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If the chaser catches them the team loses the money and the show is over.

Any mistakes? Can you fill in the answers to the questions? Once I understand it a bit better I'll give it a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I think I hit every question. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I added one more question above, but I think I know the answer so I've done a rewrite of the first part of the game play section on the article talk page, without putting in the sources. Can you take a look and see what you think? I did it because I found it hard to be sure I understood the gameplay correctly, and once I got the answers and had it clear in my head I thought it might be useful. I think it's easier sometimes for someone who is not familiar with the material to write an description, because they know what's not obvious. I'm not saying you have to use this version, of course, but to me it's clearer than what you have now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Heading out to dinner now. I'll take a look in a couple of hours. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We're eighteen months past the last air date mentioned in the article -- did the fourth season finish yet? Is it currently airing?
  • The fourth season finished as of December 2015, which is when the last new episode aired. GSN very rarely makes official cancelation announcements, but the series hasn't been seen in new episodes since that time. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The "dick-related" line is worth a grin, but that's just the headline; are you sure we need to mention it? Teti's actual comments don't really call it out; the clip gives him an opportunity to crack wise but that's really it.
  • How about trying to add an abbreviated definition of "chase" to the lead? It's a short lead, so it would have to be a very concise definition, but it might be worth trying as otherwise reading the lead really doesn't explain what's going on.
  • Gave it my best shot. Feel free to tweak it as always. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's everything I can see on a second pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that covers the second pass. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I tweaked the lead a little. Everything else has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support The article is well-written and appears to be comprehensive. I have made some minor prose adjustments but have not spot checked the sources. The only issue I can see is the sources need to be archived which I recommend to prevent link rot. MWright96 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I read this with a view to promoting but ended up doing a little copy-editing, so I'll have to recuse from this. I think we're OK from a prose viewpoint and would have no objections to promotion, but two little points which I think need clearing up; I would probably support after this. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In the Gameplay section, we have a few places where we are apparently unreferenced; I think that the information is probably covered by the next cite but it is good practice to always end a paragraph with a reference even if it is covered in the next paragraph.
  • I see the point is covered above, but it is quite a big one; if the show is no longer broadcast, we really need something to say this as it is a gaping hole in an otherwise comprehensive article. I'm sure we can find something. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sarastro1: Like I said, GSN rarely announces cancelation. The only evidence I can find is that their Facebook page for The Chase makes no mention of any new episodes after December 11, 2015 (and has been relatively dormant since then). I assume their Facebook page is not an acceptable source though. I'm thinking maybe I could say something along the lines of "The series has not aired a new episode since its season four finale, which aired on December 11, 2015" and then cite the applicable episode, but do you have any other suggestions? Another solution may be to note the series' absence from any recent press releases regarding series development, citing said press releases. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think simply stating that no new episodes have aired since... would work perfectly. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I made it "As of March 2017", since we want the article to stay accurate even if a subsequent series appears. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I personally have no problem with this, but... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, not sure why they reverted. I won't oppose over it, but if you agree it should be re-added please go ahead. We can discuss on the talk page if it's reverted again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    Ehh, I'm indifferent. Don't worry, if the series ever does come back, you can be sure I'll make a note of it :) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Happy to support this now (obviously recused as coordinator and did a little copy-editing). Sarastro1 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

INS Vikrant (R11)[edit]

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

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

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

Support Comments – really happy to see a warship like this brought to FAC. I've made several copyedits.

  • In the lead, there's only one sentence on the ship's service in the Indian Navy. Can that be expanded? (I recognize that there's not a lot out there, but it comes across as a hole)
    • Same for the article. Were there no deployments between 1971 and 1997?
  • Why was the ship decommissioned? I assume it was age-related, but were maintenance costs getting to high? Too much breaking down? Etc.
  • "After the war, the carriers were sold to several Commonwealth nations." Do your sources have a reason why? I assume it was because Britain didn't need them and was in something of a financial crisis in the post-war period? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: Thanks for the edits and the review. I've added a sentence to the lead and I think nothing much can be added. Because it covers all the sections now. Between 1971 and 1997 the ship had seen only general service with no specific deployments. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points, what you are correct, but we don't have any sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry to ping you out of the blue. Do you have any sources for the third point above? @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: what is "general service"? Can we pin that down? Were there any notable voyages? Did the ship ever sail with the later Viraat? Things like that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I've got two sources that deal with this briefly. The Brits were broke, as you surmised, and the Majestics were surplus to requirements as more, and larger carriers were on order. Hobbs, p. 199 He also mentions a serious fire aboard Vikrant in 1994 and that the ship's catapult was removed in 1987 as part of the refit. p. 203
Friedman says that the Majestics could not be modernized to meet the new 30,000-lb landing weight expected for the new and heavier jet aircraft and that the available hull space was insufficient for the desired 200,000 Imp gal of petrol and kerosene. Pages 232–33 in Friedman, Norman (1988). British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and Their Aircraft. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-054-8.  cheers Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66 and The ed17: Many thanks both you. Sturm, especially you for the input. I'll work on this ASAP. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I've supported! Can't do much if the sources aren't out there, I empathize. Thank you for checking and adding what you could. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

@Dank: Thanks for edits. Fixed the parentheses. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need source and image reviews. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid I don't have the time to do a full source review; perhaps I will in a few days. Off the top of my head, though, there are serious questions about the reliability of globalsecurity.org and of books on demand as a publisher. They do not seem to be used for absolutely critical information, so perhaps they can be replaced without too much trouble; or at the very least, investigated to establish their credibility for this information. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the review, replaced the sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Most of the image sources/licences look alright (if all those photos were really created by the Indian navy), but there are some issues with other images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This one needs an OTRS permission:[20]
  • The author info on this one seems dubious:[21] The Flickr user has uploaded several historical photos that he hardly took himself, including of WW2 Nazis:[22] Seems he may only have scanned these photos, and therefore does now own the rights.
  • The last two images in the article should have their pixel size forcing removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thanks for the review. Fixed the issues. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, I tagged the one that needed confirmed permission, it may get deleted if no one obtains it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Support, with a few minor points:

  • I made a small edit, which is here.
    Thank you, I'm happy with that. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Orosso a town? When I first read the line that mentions it, I was a little confused.
    Orosso is a town, as stated at the end of that sentence. If you feel it's still confusing, I'll reword the sentence. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence in "Reception", as a stand-alone sentence, looks incomplete. Are there other awards for which the book was nominated? Was there any notable reaction to its nomination for the Faulkner Award?
    From what I've found this book didn't receive any other nominations/awards. Further, I can't find any notable reaction to this nomination. The nomination is mentioned in the lead – I could cite it there and remove it from the Reception section. What do you think? —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Was it ever translated into other languages? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes it has – I've added this to the Background and publication section. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Coemgenus, thanks for picking up this review and for the support. I've responded to the issues you raised above. Please let me know if you find any others. —Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That all looks great. The Orosso sentence seems clear to me this morning, so I must have just been being especially dense yesterday. Nice work, good luck with the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. —Bruce1eetalk 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments.

  • "and as requested by Steiner—it was a paperback original" might read more smoothly as "and, as requested by Steiner, it was a paperback original".
    Yes, that is better – changed. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "the play confronts the audience with an event that "logic, facticity and morality", and a "knowledge of Hitlerian atrocity" are of little help": I can't quite parse this, and I suspect a verb or clause has been lost in editing.
    Simplified the sentence – I hope that helps. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I think there's still an issue. The last clause of that sentence is "an event that "logic, facticity and morality" are of little help"; but there's a verb missing -- of little help in doing what? I suspect it should be something like "of little help in resolving", or perhaps "confronts the audience with an event, in the resolution of which 'logic, facticity and morality' are of little help". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I've reworded the sentence – how does that look? —Bruce1eetalk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Responding to theatre critics that Hitler had the last word": I think this needs to be either "Responding to criticism that" or "Responding to theatre critics who objected to Hitler having the last word"; the latter seems preferable to me.
    Changed to the latter. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "He described it as "wearisome" that is "suffocate[d]" by too much "fine writing" (belles-lettres)." I think you're missing a noun after "wearisome", or else make it '"wearisome", and suffocate[d]', with a comma to separate the clauses. And why the parenthetical link to belles-lettres?
    Fixed. I parenthesised "belles-lettres" to explain "fine writing". I could pipe "fine writing" to "belles-lettres", but that means linking inside a quotation. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    OK -- I don't think you need the explanation, to be honest, but it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of "Themes" gives the source for each of the scholarly opinions quoted; is that necessary? It breaks up the flow; the other two paragraphs read much more naturally.
    I don't understand this point. The source of each quotation has to be cited. I don't see how this differs from the other two paragraphs in the section. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I meant the name of the source work. Why not make it "Margaret Burton sees the language in the book as polarised between "a venue for truth" and "a source of destruction", with Lieber representing the former, and Hitler the latter. Bryan Cheyette argues, however, that Steiner is not contrasting Lieber and Hitler, but is "portraying them as part of the same dialect", and that they reflect a dichotomy in Steiner himself." Not that particular phrasing, perhaps, but why mention the source works in the text? It's a way of introducing these names, but I think in a "Themes" section the reader is going to assume these are scholars and can check the citations for more information. It's not a major point, but I think naming the works inline makes it a bit less readable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, I misunderstood you – I thought by "sources" you meant source citations. Anyway I've adjusted that 2nd paragraph. —Bruce1eetalk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I wasn't very clear; sorry. I cut it a bit more; looks better now, though the sentence structures in that paragraph are all a bit too samey. I'll see if I can think of a way to rephrase some of it, but in the meantime I'm supporting below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, any further help would be appreciated. —Bruce1eetalk 06:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for picking up this review, and your edits. I've responded to the issues you raised above. —Bruce1eetalk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I've addressed the outstanding issues. Please have a look when you get a chance. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and your helpful edits and suggestions. I appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 06:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. Imzadi1979 did a prose review on December 28th, here. FWIW, I've looked at the changes since then, and they look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dank, thanks for that. —Bruce1eetalk 18:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

@Amada44: Actually, FoP in some countries applies to works inside buildings so long as those are "premises open to the public" - this is true in the UK, for example. That being said, the two works I specifically mentioned above are separate points from that dealing with FoP or lack thereof, and are 2D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: -and are 2D works- that is correct so there was no point in mentioning it? Amada44  talk to me 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Er, what? The 3D works needed tags; those two 2D works also needed tags. That's the point of the list above. The point of this conversation originally was to clarify a misunderstanding, but now we can move on. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
They have been tagged. Can we move on? What about reviewing the text? --Edelseider (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that the 3D works have been tagged yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: But they have been, e. g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AStrasbourg%2C_Palais_Rohan%2C_grand_cabinet_17%C3%A8me_si%C3%A8cle_%282%29.JPG&type=revision&diff=233630033&oldid=224812939. What sort of tag are you expecting? --Edelseider (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
First, that needs to happen for all 3D works, including architectural. Second, some of the works have been restored - was the restoration work sufficient to garner a new copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand you. The architectural elements are integral parts of the building and the building is from 1742, it could hardly be more public domain. Did you even read the article? I'm going to tag every single file but allow me to say that I find that insistence on marking centuries-old objects with tags and more tags and even more tags a bit fussy. Are you going to review the text as well, yes or no? --Edelseider (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely. This is just an image review, as the header says. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
He could follow up with a text review, though (ideally). --Edelseider (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Coord note: Edelseider, last things first -- Nikki is female. She is also one of our most experienced image and source reviewers, and I suggest you adopt a more collegial approach to dealing with her comments or those of any other reviewer. Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us and under no obligation to review more of the article than she chooses to. Her image reviews alone are vital to the FAC process, because if a nomination does not satisfy WP image licensing standards then it won't be promoted to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: - I am trying to be collegial, which is not always easy, as you will admit. So I am - quite collegially - asked about the public domain status of a building that is in the public domain and about the copyright status of works whose authors are dead for centuries. I thought it wouldn't take long to deal collegially with these simple questions but I was proven wrong. I collegially suggest that @Nikkimaria: removes all the pictures from the article that she still has doubts about. That would settle the matter at long last. Regards, --Edelseider (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: As for "Nikki is a volunteer like the rest of us", you couldn't have said it more rightly. Thus I am a volunteer like the rest of you to provide Wikipedia with quality content, which should be judged on its qualities and on its content.--Edelseider (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Image copyright status and the correct signaling of this status is an important aspect of article quality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Linking is an issue. In general, we should not have adjacent words or phrases linked to different targets, and we should only link to the most specific target. For example, from the first sentence, "Strasbourg, Bas-Rhin, France" has three separate links. If a reader needed further information on the location, he or she should be directed to the city article. If that's not informative enough, he or she can navigate from the city to the department or country articles as appropriate. Another example is "Cardinal Armand Gaston Maximilien de Rohan, Bishop of Strasbourg", linking to each of the two titles as well as the biography. In this case, I'd suggest that we only need the link to the biography article, because if a reader needed further information from there, well, he or she can navigate to those other articles. In short: provide the most value to the reader to avoid making them guess what link will give them the most information. Imzadi 1979  18:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Very good, Yes check.svg Done. --Edelseider (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

  • Comment. Hi Edelseider, I'm enjoying reading this. I was wondering about the layout. It looks good on the mobile app, but very few readers are accessing it that way. More are using the mobile web, and most are viewing it on desktop. On desktop, with the window width I normally use, your "interior views" section has three images on the top line, six on the second, and one on the third. And the "y" in "18th-century tiled stove" is on the next line: "18th-centur ...y tiled". On the mobile view, the article looks better (larger font size, for one thing), and the images in that section are on two lines (four on top, six on the second), but the text is still split: "18th-centu ...ry pedal"
    Placing the images in a gallery also means you have a bit of a "wall of text" situation, which is hard to read with the smaller desktop font size. If you want to keep them in the gallery, perhaps introduce some extra paragraph breaks. The paragraph beginning "The year 1871" is 21 lines long on my screen. SarahSV (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Got it, Yes check.svg Done and thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That looks better, thank you (the gallery and the paragraph break). You might want to do the same with the "external views" gallery. And there may be other paragraphs that could use a break. "Among the works of art on view" is another long one. SarahSV (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done – I hope it looks even better now! :) Edelseider (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That gallery now has three on top and two on the second line, at every width I've tried except very narrow, so lots of white space. Perhaps try five like the other one? SarahSV (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I just tried five and that doesn't work either. Your way looked better. SarahSV (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I added some pictures (there are hundreds of them on Commons) so it is now 4+4. --Edelseider (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That looks good at most of the widths I tried. There's white space at very wide, but it can't be helped. I wish Wikimedia would introduce a fixed width (and columns). Anyway, thank you for those changes. SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question about capitals in this sentence:
"The Palais Rohan in Strasbourg was built on the site of the former residence of the bishop, the "Bishop's demesne" (German: Bischöflicher Fronhof, shortened to Bischofshof, "Bishop's court"),[7] also known as "Bishop's palace" (German: Bischöfliche Pfalz),[8] which is recorded since at least 1262.[9]"
Are "Bishop's demesne" and "Bishop's court" proper nouns (names)? SarahSV (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you mean – it could be read as "the court of Mr. Bishop" instead of "the court of the bishop". That is the kind of thing I do not spontaneously see, because I am not a native speaker of English. So yes, capitalizing is wrong (although the Germans do it all the time). --Edelseider (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I wasn't thinking of Mr. Bishop, but whether the phrase "Bishop's demesne" is a name. I'll take it that it isn't. By the way, if I make copy-edits you don't like, please revert; no explanation needed. SarahSV (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation format: I see you've repeated the full citation several times, e.g. Martin, Étienne (2012). Le Palais Rohan. p. 94. ISBN 978-2-35125-098-3 There's no rule against doing this (you can choose whichever citation format you prefer within reason), but it isn't standard practice.
    You might consider instead using a long cite on first mention, and short thereafter, e.g. Martin (2012), p. 94. You can do this with and without citation templates; if you use templates, you can link between the long and the short, but I never do that myself, so I can't offer advice on that score. Or you can use all short cites as inline references (whatever you want to call it, e.g. Notes), followed by a list of the full citations in a separate section (e.g. References). Those can be linked too using templates, although it isn't necessary. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, see here. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Edelseider, that's fine if you want to do it that way. But it isn't standard to keep repeating the first name. The usual thing is variations of Smith 2017, p. 1; Smith (2017), 1; Smith, Name of Book, p. 1; and so on. But it's your decision. SarahSV (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Caps and italics: you should decide on style and formatting (including for references), then make it consistent. For example, you've written Kunstmuseum der Stadt Strassburg (italics), Musée des Beaux-Arts (no italics, caps), Musée des beaux-arts (no italics, no caps), and Musée des arts décoratifs (no italics, no caps). I can't remember what the MoS recommends, but you should look that up, and either follow it or choose another style guide to follow, but definitely make it consistent. Most FAC reviewers will want you to follow the MoS, so it's best to do that unless there's a good reason not to. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
See MOS:FOREIGNITALIC and WP:MOSCAPS. SarahSV (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, [23], thank you @SlimVirgin:! Edelseider (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. The citations still need work. Quite a few have publisher and location missing. This one is written in full: Schnitzler, Bernadette; Schneider, Malou (1985). Le Musée archéologique de Strasbourg. Strasbourg: Musées de Strasbourg. Some have ISBNs, others not. ISBNs aren't required, but we need consistency. Also, I wouldn't give nytimes.com as the publisher. Better to say The New York Times. Ditto with the other newspapers and magazines. And Council of Europe, rather than coe.int. SarahSV (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The Schnitzler/Schneider book has no ISBN. What can I do? Specify that it has no ISBN? You may not believe me but it really hasn't - the book is right in front of me as I write.--Edelseider (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
f it has no ISBN, that's okay. The problem is that you're using an unusual system, which is hard to scan. On first mention: Recht, Roland; Foessel, Georges; Klein, Jean-Pierre (1988). Connaître Strasbourg. p. 72. ISBN 2-7032-0185-0. Thereinafter: Recht, Roland; Foessel, Georges; Klein, Jean-Pierre. Connaître Strasbourg. p. 66. Not much difference, and the full cite is missing location and publisher. Please add the missing information, and consider fixing the short cites to something more standard. Or you can use the {{rp}} template if you don't want to use short citations. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope it is allright now Sarah.--Edelseider (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The information needed for books is: John Smith, Title of Book, London: Routledge, 2017, p. 1. And ISBN if wanted. You can vary that: Smith, John; full stops rather than commas, or a combination; year in brackets after the name; leave out "p" and just write the page number; write them manually or use templates. Another example: Smith, John (2017). Title of Book, London: Routledge, 1.

For short cites: Smith 2017, p. 1. or Smith (2017), 1. Or you can use the template {{rp}} to repeat the long citations using ref name and {{rp}} to add the page number. I'll explain more how to do that if you want to use it.

For newspapers: John Smith, "Title of article", The New York Times, 28 February 2017. You can add an access date if the source is a website that hosts undated articles.

See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates for more information. SarahSV (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In case it helps, an example of a well-referenced FA without templates is Ernest Hemingway, and with templates Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar. SarahSV (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is not fine as it is now. I am sorry but I'm afraid that you will want me to change everything again once I have changed everything (again). I have used templates from the start to the finish. Do I really have to keep on with this? --Edelseider (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Please take the time to add a consistent citation style that includes author name, date/year of publication, title, and publisher. And location for books. The current version has information missing and is inconsistent, e.g. footnote 4, no publisher; ditto footnote 7; what is crdp-strasbourg.fr? Those are just examples. SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The website archi-wiki.org is used a few times. Is that crowd-sourced? SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but it is financially supported by the city of Strasbourg and the region Grand Est, among other institutions, so it is more official than Wikipedia. Just see the bottom of the page: http://www.archi-wiki.org/. Edelseider (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: − I have Yes check.svg Done it all now, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=767957980&oldid=767880925. I admit that it looks much better! --Edelseider (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That does look better. It needs more work. Several need publication dates (e.g. refs 2 and 3). The New York Times needs italics and so do other titles. Please add the titles to the "work" parameter of the templates; that will add italics. No need to include the website too (e.g. "britannica.com. Encyclopaedia Britannica" looks odd, and Encyclopaedia Britannica needs italics). Again, these are just examples. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a long sentence, and I'm not sure what it means: "The symmetry impression of the riverside façade, arranged around an avant-corps of four columns with Corinthian capitals supporting a voluminous pediment again adorned with the coat of arms of the House of Rohan, is enlivened by the library wing on the west side, which offers a contrast in structure." SarahSV (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:TAA-DAAA! All the best, Edelseider (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's looking good, thank you. I've added full stops after the short refs, because the long refs have them. I've also fixed a few inconsistencies, and I left you two demos (different ways of doing it), [24][25] in case you want the short refs to link to the long ones. But that's not required.
A few points: Ref 35: It's not clear what this source is. [26] Ref 37: Best to use the original source here, not this summary of it. [27] Refs 66 and 68: Both say "History". Musées de la ville de Strasbourg, but lead to different URLs. Perhaps change one title?
Ref35: It's an article from a now defunct website dedicated to Napoleon. The author (Christophe Bourachot) has published a few books on the subject. I shall add his name for more clarity. Refs 66 and 68, indeed, and that's why I didn't capitalize the first "History" (I wrote "history" instead), but since it is confusing, I'll just expand the titles. Ref37 : you are right.Edelseider (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It's best to avoid self-published sources such as the Napoleon one and the wiki. As Christophe Bourachot is a published author on Napoleon, could you use one of his books instead? SarahSV (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really, but I think I can remove this reference anyway - he doesn't provide anything new, just a photographic proof that there is indeed a bedroom of Napoleon in the Palace.
As for archi-wiki, don't let the name and the design fool you, it is a reliable source; as I told you they are funded by the municipality of Strasbourg and other institutions like the Ministère de la culture et de la communication so I wouldn't say they are self-published the way websites run by individuals for their own pleasure are. --Edelseider (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. SarahSV (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Edelseider (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It isn't clear what your bibliography is. The first three entries aren't used as references, and the first two are almost identical, except for the year but with the same ISBN. The latter two are used as references.SarahSV (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll call the other books "further reading", then.Edelseider (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Edelseider (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Publisher and location? And do both volumes really have the same ISBN? Les grands appartements du Palais Rohan de Strasbourg also needs location and publisher. SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Both volumes do have the same ISBN, I've checked, so I've removed the mention of a volume altogether.--Edelseider (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks for making all those fixes. It's looking good. SarahSV (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience! --Edelseider (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And thanks to you too! I know it seems niggly, but these things really affect whether it looks professional. There's still inconsistent capitalization, e.g. Musée des Beaux-Arts/Musée des beaux-arts. Whichever you choose, just make sure it's consistent. Perhaps check the Wikipedia article to see what it does, and the museum website. And only proper nouns/names are capitalized, so state is lower case. SarahSV (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually strike that. I think they're all fixed. SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Only the portrait of Armand Gaston, the builder of the palace, was later restored to its original place with a 1982 copy after Hyacinthe Rigaud." By "after", do you mean "in the style of"? SarahSV (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I think I could formulate that sentence even better. Will do. --Edelseider (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a replica after one of the contemporary copies of the painting, like this one: [28], because of course nobody could make a copy in 1982 of the destroyed original. --Edelseider (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that's clearer. Re: this edit, is it one bishop or plural? SarahSV (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It is several bishops. I followed your edit here. If you were wrong, I replicated the mistake, but it's easy to correct. --Edelseider (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's plural, it's bishops' hall. Re: caps, we also have Bishop's Hall, Bedchamber of the King, Cabinet of the King, Assembly room. It's up to you to decide whether they are names, and whether you are translating them as names or as descriptions, and if names whether both words are capitalized. I can't decide that because I'm not familiar with the sources, but I think I would write them all lower case in English. SarahSV (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done − I think we are through now! Phew! All the best, Edelseider (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure I understand this sentence: "Besides the apartments of the prince-bishops and cardinals, the main focus of the museum is the local production of porcelain (Strasbourg faience), silver-gilt and clockmaking, with original parts of the medieval Strasbourg astronomical clock including the automaton rooster from 1354."

And this one should be broken up: "It was established in its current form in the years 1920–1924, when the collections of the Kunstgewerbe-Museum Hohenlohe (originally established in 1887 and located until then in the Renaissance former municipal slaughterhouse – the Grandes Boucheries or Große Metzig – which now hosts the Musée historique de Strasbourg[66]) were relocated in the stables wing adjacent to the Palace apartments." SarahSV (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=768347645&oldid=768324529. Are we through now? --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's coming along. Thank you for the fixes. A few more points:
  • This sentence should be broken up, and any other like it: "In 1939 already, the carpet covering the table in the middle of the library, woven in Portuguese India around 1730[N 3], which was given to the Cathedral chapter after 1806 and sold to the Musée de Cluny in 1865, was returned to the city of Strasbourg on permanent loan."
  • "copies after" should be unpacked, because most readers won't know what it means: "copies after Antonio da Correggio", "copies after greater masters", and any other examples.
  • Contemporaneous is better than contemporary in "replacing 18th-century copies after contemporary French masters", and any similar usage.
  • Could you explain this? "Napoleon's green bed is an original work by Jacob-Desmalter."
  • typo: "through it single, very large window"
  • It isn't clear in the lead who owns it now ("the Palais was owned in turn by the nobility, the municipality, the monarchy, the state and the university"). You could also say who has lived there and who the illustrious guests were.
  • Is there any information about who actually built it, i.e. a social history? There often isn't, but if it exists, it would be interesting. SarahSV (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: – Sarah, you are a bit a sadist, aren't you? This is not perfectionism, this is torture. You are coming now with a lot of questions you could have asked a week ago. What else do you have in store? How many points? Can't you just name them all at once? Damn it, I'm getting really upset now! What do you mean by "readers wouldn't know what copies are?" What kind of readers do you mean? Illiterate people who would never read an article? --Edelseider (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't even understand your question about "who built it". Did you read the article? In 1727, Armand Gaston Maximilien de Rohan, bishop of Strasbourg since 1704 and Cardinal since 1712, commissioned the architect Robert de Cotte to design the palace; De Cotte provided initial plans the same year. Building work on the Palais Rohan, mostly in yellow sandstone from Wasselonne, with pink sandstone for the less visible parts, took place from 1732 until 1742 under the supervision of the municipal architect Joseph Massol, who also worked on the Hôtel de Hanau and the Hôtel de Klinglin during the early years of the project. Massol was assisted by the architects Laurent Gourlade and Étienne Le Chevalier. The sculptures – statues as well as reliefs – were provided by Robert Le Lorrain, assisted by Johann August Nahl, Gaspard Pollet and Laurent Leprince; the paintings by Pierre Ignace Parrocel and Robert de Séry. The ébéniste Bernard Kocke and the ironworkers and locksmiths Jean-François Agon and his son Antoine Agon worked on the furnishings of the apartments, while the stucco was the work of the Italians Castelli and Morsegno. --Edelseider (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I have done these edits now and I really wish you could put an end to this charade now, it isn't pleasant any more and I'd rather quit editing than be pushed around like that! --Edelseider (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: Edelseider, these last comments really step over the line. I'm afraid if you continue like this, nobody will review this article. It needs to be a collaboration. Sarah is a very experienced reviewer and knows her way around FAC, and knows what a FA needs. It would make much more sense to work with her rather than resort to insults. I would advise striking some of those comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: – Father of Pamina, I have been a very obedient and diligent collaborator and so far I have worked with Sarah tirelessly. But instead of giving me a long and consistent list of tasks, or at least several longish lists, she is giving me the drop-by-drop treatment that is also known as Chinese torture. Now she is telling me things (rewriting the intro) we could have started with! I will endure this until the very end, not for me because I am and will remain anonymous, but for the Palais Rohan itself, but honestly, I feel treated in a way that I do not really deserve. What would Wikipedia be without the people who write articles? --Edelseider (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, here are the new edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=768563311&oldid=768347645. --Edelseider (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Edelseider, the problem has been that you've fixed only the examples I've pointed out, rather than fixing all instances of the same issue. When I wrote on 28 February: "Caps and italics: you should decide on style and formatting (including for references), then make it consistent", that meant "please fix all the style inconsistencies". Having to point out every single example has felt like water torture to me too.
When I asked who built it, I was referring to the labour force; the architects didn't build it. I wondered whether anything is known about the work force: how many involved, how they were paid, where they lived, and so on. It was just a suggestion.
Re: the lead. I could only make suggestions for the lead after having read the article. Anyway, I'll leave it there. Best of luck with it. SarahSV (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin:to be fair, you should strike the points that have been addressed in the last four days, there are many. Wherever this goes. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

I'll take a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Edelseider (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...from the architect Robert de Cotte - I don't understand how it can be commissioned from an architect...?
That's a language problem (mine). How would you say? I sincerely don't know (I am a level 3.5 English speaker, not a level 5). --Edelseider (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
(We-ell, I can confirm your English is better than my Francais or Deutsch..I fumbled around in German when I was in Strasbourg 25 years ago..lovely place) Okay, well trying to establish what it means - does it mean the Cardinal got de Cotte to do the design? or something else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. In German, you would say er beauftragte ihn mit einem Bau or er gab einen Bau bei ihm in Auftrag, in French you would say il lui a commandé un édifice - meaning that he formally asked him to design a building for him.--Edelseider (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Architecture is by no means a strong point of mine - my feeling is the cardinal commissions the architect to build the palace (i.e. the object of "commission" is the architect not the palace...need to check on this) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, I've completely rewritten that sentence: [29]. Edelseider (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep, much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Palais Rohan in Strasbourg was built on the site of the former residence of the bishop... - the "in Strasbourg" is a bit repetitive as the words have just been used in the previous sentence...and we've established it is in Strasbourg anyway...?

:Fair point, I'll remove that. --Edelseider (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Paragraph 2 in the Up to 1871 subsection is a bit listy. Any extra information (on artworks or artists) might help breaking up a long list of names.
@Casliber: – it's Yes check.svg Done now, see here. --Edelseider (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is there a link to facebook at the bottom?
Why not? It's the official page of the Palace, maintained by the Musées de Strasbourg. Shall I remove it? --Edelseider (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I would. It doesn't add anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay.--Edelseider (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To compensate for the declivity, - err, wy not just say "slope" or "incline"
indeed, why not. --Edelseider (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't see anything on its dimensions (unless I am missing something...) how tall/long/wide is it?
I have no idea. I have looked for that kind of information but found nothing. I would like to know as well! --Edelseider (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh well, you tried. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Ultimately, it's looking good and on track for FA status I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I was nicely invited on my talk and will look now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

  • "such as Louis XV of France, Marie Antoinette, Napoleon and Joséphine, and Charles X of France", - for someone not knowing that looks like Napoleon not of France ;) - How about "French royalty"?
  • If you want to pipe university, get the "the" in the link, or people would expect University and not click. I'd just un-pipe it.

Up to 1871

  • Why bishop but Cardinal?
  • Do we need all the different names of the former desmene? If yes, can it go to a footnote?
  • "antique" - how about "ancient" or "Roman"?
  • "Building work ..." - a long sentence. I'd like to read the time first, then the material (if at all in "History").
  • "The Palais Rohan remained the hôtel de ville until 1805", - how about introducing the French term when town hall is mentioned.

Since 1871

  • "German rule over Alsace (Alsace had previously ..." - how about avoiding repetition: "German rule over Alsace which had previously ..."?
  • "On August 11" - I'd use European dates consistently, even for American bombs.

Notable guests

  • Why the days in brackets after the years?
  • Why the presidents out of chronology?

Structure

  • How about river Ill?
  • "Christian virtues, such as "Religion", "Clemency", "Penitence", "Eucharist"" - I don't know religion and eucharist as virtues ;)

Exterior views

  • I'd like the first one from 1744 in the text body because it's too small.

Apartments

  • "garderobe are" or "garderobe is"?

More to come, interesting (hi)story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Back, but found nothing more. I could images of what the museums contain.

General wish: not many references at the end of a paragraph, but more specifically to single facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you dear Gerda, I am going to take care of all that over the next three days (maximum).--Edelseider (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: – it's Yes check.svg Done, thank you for your input. I did not add images from the content of the museums because it is impossible to choose only eight items among all of them. I made a valuable selection a while ago here: Commons:Palais_Rohan_(Strasbourg)#Collections_municipales but that's as narrow as it can get! Heartily, Edelseider (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Support. As said before, I personally prefer references not within the text, but that's up to you.

Ceoil[edit]

I would like to eventually support this article, as the nominator has a lot of knowledge and the topic has worth. However, the prose as stands is very labored. Oppose for now, in lieu of a copy edit, which is sorely needed.

The main issue I see here is run on-sentences, eg (at random) "The Palais Rohan remained the hôtel de ville until 1805, when it was offered to Napoleon who, in return, gave the city the hitherto state-owned Hôtel de Hanau, an arrangement which proved favourable for everybody: for the municipality, the maintenance of the Hôtel de Hanau was less costly than that of the larger Palais Rohan; for Napoleon, the palace was the more conspicuous display of grandeur; for the palace, imperial ownership meant renewed splendour. The gift to Napoleon was officially accepted by decree on 21 January 1806."

The run ons here are " for the municipality, the maintenance..." and "for the palace". Unfortunately, the article has a lot of this. Nor do I like like 'hitherto'. Ceoil (talk)

"The stucco of the library however, lost in 1817 because of the leaking flat roof above that room (the only free standing part of the building), was never restored" - I understand the points, but sentences such as this lack focus and coherence for the average reader. There is too much crammed in, and the punctuation seems random. Once again, this is an eg of an issue I find through out the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will take care of that. That doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. You want shorter sentences. More precise statements. I understand. Edelseider (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I have Yes check.svg Done as best as I could, please see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Rohan%2C_Strasbourg&type=revision&diff=772625922&oldid=772559913. Thanks for the compliment on my knowledge, by the way. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sino-Roman relations[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

More: Still looking very good, and very readable. I've read to the end of "Roman exports to China". Sarastro1 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm a little uncomfortable with the length of the quotation from Ma Duanlin and wonder if some of it could be cut or paraphrased. Not a big issue in any case.
  • "Richthofen's identification of Cattigara as Hanoi was widely accepted until archaeological discoveries made at Óc Eo (near Ho Chi Minh City) in the Mekong Delta suggested this may have been its location": Can we date these discoveries? It would provide some contrast with the 1877 date mentioned. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I dated it as "mid-20th century" since it is explained a couple sentences later that it was excavated by Louis Malleret during the 1940s. As for the Ma Duanlin quote, I'll see what I can do, although I also don't consider it a pressing issue. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

More, leaning support: I've read to the end now, and fully expect to support this. It is very interesting, and very well written. However, there are a few places where we drift into academic style which does not quite fit here. There is one example below, but there are a few borderline cases where we get a little too "chatty". Nothing that can't be fixed easily. My other nagging concern is the use of long quotations, as I mentioned above and one below. I'd not oppose on this, or even come close, but I do wonder how necessary they are. My inclination is to replace them with a summary, but that is perhaps a matter of taste; I do know that a few editors would actually oppose over similar issues, but maybe not when we are quoting primary sources. Anyway, this can be discussed further. I'd like to read over it one last time, and maybe give a few places a mild copy-edit, but there are no major issues here at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • "Despite the claims by Pliny the Elder about the trade imbalance and much of Rome's coinage used to purchase silk, Warwick Ball asserts that the spice trade and purchase of other commodities was of much greater consequence for the Roman economy": I'm not too sure what we are saying here. Greater positive or negative consequence, and how does that link to the main idea about the silk trade?
  • I'm not sure of the benefit of the long quotes by Pliny and Seneca. If Pliny were cut right now, the main text would still summarise the content perfectly; the second quote is a little more useful but could easily be replaced with a word or two more. The article is already long; I'd say they are unnecessary, but that would not affect whether I support.
  • "Trade items such as spice and silk had to be paid for with Roman gold coinage, but although there was some demand in China for Roman glass, glass was also produced locally in China": Can we rephrase to avoid "...glass. Glass..."?
  • "Even with the Byzantine production of silk starting in the 6th century AD, Chinese varieties were still considered of better quality, a fact that is perhaps underscored by the discovery of a Byzantine solidus minted during the reign of Justin II found in a Sui-dynasty tomb of Shanxi province in 1953, among other Byzantine coins found at various sites.": This reads a little too much like a history paper and less like an encyclopedia. I couldn't really think of a way to reword this, but I think we need to take out the academic tone. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: greetings! Thanks for coming back to review the article. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have reworded the part about Warwick Ball's claim regarding the spice trade.
  • I have removed the quote by Pliny the Elder and summarized its contents instead, seeing how it perhaps offers less to our readers than other quotations used in the article. I have no desire and see no need to do the same for the quote by Seneca the Elder, though. For that matter I don't think there is any problem in quoting brief passages from primary sources. Although merely mentioning it borders on Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, I feel compelled to note that some featured articles contain quotations from primary sources as well, such as the article on Pericles (my namesake here on Wiki). I would consider it to be highly obnoxious if someone actually opposed this article's FA candidacy on the sole basis that some primary source quotations have been sparingly used. With the removal of Pliny, there are now only five block quotations, three of them very small, and two of them somewhat large. Perhaps the two larger ones can be parsed down, but again, I don't think that should affect the article's FA candidacy. If someone actually does oppose the article on such grounds, I'd suggest waiting for a second, third, fourth, and fifth opinion on the matter before considering the removal of further quotations.
  • I have reworded the sentence about glass. Good catch! It's never a good thing to sound redundant.
  • I have also reworded the part about Chinese silk and Byzantine coins that you thought sounded too academic for an encyclopedia.
I hope that these recent changes are suitable enough to earn your support. Please let me know if there are any further concerns you might have with the article and its prose, sourcing, image captions, etc. Kind regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 07:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: This was very enjoyable, and thank you for your patience with the pace of my review. I've removed some of the less formal, or "academic" phrasings but feel free to revert anything I messed up. This is a long article, and I might have missed something but it looks good after a couple of read-throughs. It is a little unusual for a WP article, in several ways, but I think it meets the FA criteria. I have this watch-listed and will keep an eye on other comments in case I have missed anything important. Long, deeply sourced articles like this can be tricky to review, so I hope this one gets a few more eyes. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: great! Thanks for taking the time to review thearticle. The flow of it has been markedly improved and the prose tightened thanks to your input. Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

I like this, very worthy and interesting subject. Some comments from a non-historian.

  • I've made a handful of edits
  • In Roman geography China and the silk-producing Seres' of the Far East. - probably good to explain what Seres means here, since its the first mention in the main text
  • Florus seems to have confused the Seres with peoples of India, or at least noted that their skin complexions proved that they both lived "beneath another sky" than the Romans.[2] Roman authors generally seem to have demonstrated some confusion as to where the Seres were located precisely, in either Central Asia or East Asia This would be clearer if I understood what the writer meant by Seres, so that one can better contrast it with the confusion of classical writers.
  • In the 1st-century AD Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, ... he visited many of these locations is a very long sentence. Maybe break it up thusly In the 1st-century AD Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, its anonymous Greek-speaking author, a merchant of Roman Egypt, provides such vivid accounts of trade cities that it is clear he visited many of these locations. These accounts included trade cities in Arabia, Pakistan, and India, including travel times from rivers and towns, where to drop anchor, the locations of royal courts, lifestyles of the locals and goods found in their markets, and favorable times of year to sail from Egypt to these places in order to catch the monsoon winds.?
  • Consistency: Óc Eo in lead, most likely Oc Eo, Vietnam in text
  • Some of the locations and dependent states of Rome in the Weilüe that were identified by Friedrich Hirth (1885) have been contradicted by John E. Hill (2004). I feel this would flow better if you first introduced the idea that Hirth identified locations, and only then introduce the idea that these have been disputed (and I think disputed its a better term). Example Frederick Hirth (1885) identified a number of the locations and dependent states named in the Weilüe, although some of his identifications have been disputed... Or something like that.
  • Both the Old Book of Tang and New Book of Tang record that the Arabs (Da shi 大食) sent their commander "Mo Yi" (摩拽伐之, Pinyin: Mó zhuāi fá zhī, i.e. Muawiyah I, the governor of Syria before becoming the Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD) to besiege the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, and forced the Byzantines to pay them tribute - the information in brackets really breaks up the flow of this sentence - maybe better as a footnote?

More comments to follow,. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. As per your suggestions, I have clarified who the Seres were, reworded and split apart that long sentence about the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, and reworded the passage about Hirth (1885), Hill (2004), and the Weilüe. However, I did not edit the part about the Arabs and Muawiyah I. I think most readers simply do not consult the footnotes, and removing the context that "Mo Yi" has been identified as Muawiyah I would lead most readers to question who the hell we're talking about. That explanation is planted there in order to avoid confusion as much as it is to highlight the fact that the Chinese were privy enough to affairs and important individuals of the Mediterranean world that they identified them by name (at least by the 7th century AD). In either case I look forward to your other suggestions. Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • maybe commander "Mo Yi" (Muawiyah I, governor of Syria and later Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD) to besiege the Byzantine capital, Constantinople... ? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately no, because I have not created a separate article yet for "Mo Yi" (as opposed to Muawiyah I, who should have a separate article from the person described in Chinese sources). Removing the Chinese characters goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles. Until I or someone else creates a "Mo Yi" article, I'm afraid that they have to stay. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it's been discussed ad nauseum in the talk pages, but I feel compelled to note that I thought the MOS existed to make Wikipedia easier and clearer to read. But I've had my own run-ins with the MOS and their...idiosyncrasies, so I won't push the issue here. I still think that Muawiyah I, governor of Syria and later Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD is clearer than the governor of Syria before becoming the Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680 AD. Throwing the verb becoming threw me off on my first pass through because I skipped over the whole "Mo Yi" (摩拽伐之, Pinyin: Mó zhuāi fá zhī, i.e. - I missed the bracket opening an assumed the next bit of text followed on from the Arabs (Da shi 大食) sent their commander. And brevity is a bonus here.

Anyway, on with the review.

  • Embassy to Augustus - The 2nd-century AD Roman historian Florus describes Context of who Florus is is great, would have been better the first time he was mentioned in the main text of the article.
  • Question on this section, we have describes the visit of numerous envoys, including the "Seres" (possibly the Chinese) to the first Roman Emperor Augustus (r. 27 BC – 14 AD) followed by a direct quote. Then a discussion about how little else can be found from the sources. My question is - is there nothing more than can be said about this embassy than the quote? There must be some analysis in the historical literature about it? (This may not be actionable, but it seems this section is of particular importance and relies heavily on just the account.
  • in both the Parthian Empire and Kushan Empire of Asia, ethnic Greeks continued to be employed as entertainers such as musicians and athletes why continued? (Isn't clear from the surrounding sentences. Also, why the introduction of Syrian jugglers at the end of the paragraph... are we talking Syrian Greeks?

More to come, saving edit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • provided much-needed "prestige" for Emperor Huan, as he was facing serious political troubles and fallout for the forced suicide of Liang Ji, who had dominated the Han government well after the death of his sister Empress Liang Na. - some context is needed as this is a bit of a non sequitur. Who is Liang Ji? Is it enough to say political troubles after the forced suicide of politician and rival Liang Ji? Or better yet, how about he was facing serious political troubles in the period known as the Disasters of the Partisan Prohibitions. (or first DPP). This makes it explicit that the troubles were severe (severe enough to have a wikipedia article), links clearly to the troubles and Liang Ji if readers are interested, without getting bogged down in history tangential to the scope of the article.
  • Yule speculated that the Roman visitors must have lost their original wares due to robbery or shipwreck and used the aforementioned items as gifts instead, prompting the Chinese sources to accuse them of withholding their more precious valuables, I think this section should come after the sentence on what the gifts were, and lead with the accusation, and then follow with the scholarly assessment that they may have been robbed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: my reply to your latest suggestions:
  • I shifted the description of Florus up to the first instance where he is mentioned in the article. Good catch!
  • There's not much analysis about Florus' quote and, as Yule pointed out, no other instance where a Roman historian mentioned a "Seres" embassy arriving in the Roman Empire.
  • As a historian I thought it was clear, but I suppose most people don't realize the Parthian Empire and Kushan Empire came after the Hellenistic period in Asia (a period that coincided with Alexander the Great's conquests and the diadochi successor state of the Seleucid Empire). I have amended that sentence accordingly to provide a bit more context about how ethnic Greeks in Asia "continued" their professions as athletes and musicians.
  • Syrian jugglers means just that...it could include anyone from ancient Syria, not necessarily ethnic Greeks (although they were the premier ethnic group there in Hellenistic times). That's too much to explain in one sentence without getting too wordy; I think it is fine how it is and doesn't mislead the reader in any way.
  • I have added the word "politician" before "Liang Ji."
  • I have shifted the sentence about Yule's speculations of this group's wares being taken in robbery or lost in a shipwreck right after the sentence that listed the wares offered as gifts to the Han court. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Another embassy from Daqin is recorded in the year 284 AD, as bringing tributary gifts to the Chinese Jin Empire (265–420 AD). would make a lot more sense if in the year 284AD, was taken out. It's badly broken as is
  • Chinese histories for the Tang dynasty (618–907 AD) record contacts with merchants from "Fulin" (拂菻), the new name used to designate the Byzantine Empire, the continuation of the Roman Empire in the east.[27][83] During the 19th century Hirth and Yule identified Fulin as the Byzantine Empire Redundancy: two sentences telling us the Fulin in Byzantine, one after another. Try and reword so the salient points (Tang dynasty records, Hirth and Yule's conclusion, what Fulin is) are covered once
  • Yule asserts that the additional Fulin embassies during the Tang period arrived in 711 and 719 AD, with another in 742 AD that may have simply been Nestorian monks Asserts jibes oddly with may in this sentence - maybe Yule sugests? Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have reworded that sentence about Daqin and the Jin Empire, shifting the date "284 AD" into the next sentence.
  • I have slightly reworded the part about Fulin being the Byzantine Empire, but I disagree that there is a redundancy here when one sentence is about the statements found in Tang-period Chinese histories and another is about the scholarly consensus as it existed in the 19th century. These two are not the same. If you have a better suggestion, supply it please, because I fail to see the problem here.
  • No. Yule does not "suggest" that Fulin embassies came in 711 and 719 AD. Those are the dates he was adamant about. It was the mission in 742 AD that is more questionable and may have only been one of Nestorian Christian monks from West Asia instead of "Fulin" people. The sentence reads just fine from what I can tell. You might be overthinking this, just a bit too hard. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Mea culpa...
  • the Tang Dynasty considered "Daqin" and "Fulin" is followed by an account which compares Fulin was held to be identical with the ancient Ta-ts'in.. I'm going to go out on a limb - Ta-ts'in is Daqin - rendered differently (I'm guessing Wade-Giles spelling is different). This is complicated stuff for people not in the field and could use an explanation, (Wade-Giles and Ta-ts'in hadn't appeared yet in the main text, maybe a footnote? It's a fascinating account, just needs to be a little clearer for laypeople.
  • He also lists Roman items found there, including glass beads and bracelets. Dumb question - What does this add to the paragraph? The sections is about whether the romans went there. We already know that Roman stuff was found there. Warwick Ball's hypothesis is interesting, this factoid isn't. If it is, it isn't clear why.
  • I'll come back and finish off. I'm struggling a little bit with the background of the coins paragraph, so I'll look at it later with a clear head. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added information about Wade-Giles versus Pinyin spelling conventions into the footnote for that block quote of a passage from the Wenxian Tongkao.
  • I have shifted the statement about beads and bracelets up to the previous paragraph where it is more relevant. Good point!
  • I look forward to the rest of your review. Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 04:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, reading through again support. Good stuff. Thanks for putting up with my comments :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: thanks! I'm glad that you enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. All the best. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • I can't quite sign off on the first paragraph (though I'll probably support anyway). Normally, I limit myself to problems that are small enough that I can just fix them, without complaining ... but there's no obvious fix, since leads are limited to 4 paragraphs. It tries to do too much, so it's hard to avoid problems like the "Mutual awareness" sentence, which follows a sentence about Parthians and Kushans, raising the question of who's aware of whom. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: hello! Thanks for reviewing and copyediting the article. I have no qualms with the edits you've made thus far, so there's no need to revert anything. As for your concern about the first paragraph, I found a very easy solution. I simply shifted the problematic/confusing sentence up and just before the one about the Parthian and Kushan empires. This makes it clear that we are still talking about the Han Chinese and Roman empires. This was a great observation! I look forward to any others and am willing to address any objections you might have. All the best. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • much-needed "prestige" for: Lose the scare-quotes, if possible.
  • "giving him the title": Lose the in-text link to the the Chinese Wikisource. There are several options.
  • stuffed into a "feather bag": I changed this to: stuffed into what was called a "feather bag". Since quote marks can mean roughly four different things, it's important to specify what they mean (which sometimes means you can drop the quote marks altogether).
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I can't speak to much of the history, but the article is dense and the scope is breathtaking ... quite an accomplishment. More please! - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: excellent! Thank you very much for your support. I have removed the scare quotes around the word "prestige" and I've moved the Chinese language Wikisource link down to the "External links" section. I hope that suffices! Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review: All sources of very high quality, and certainly reliable. Formatting looks largely OK for "Sources" (though I might have missed something as it is certainly comprehensive) but I noticed a couple of things in the Citations:

  • Consistency over ending citations with a period/full stop (e.g. ref 3) or not (e.g. ref 4)
  • Consistency over page numbers: Are we using pp. 123-124 or 123-24: there is some variation.
  • Consistency over using p. and pp. or p and pp for page numbers.
  • Ref 46: "Florus, as quoted in Yule (1915), p. 18; footnote#" Do we have a missing footnote number here?

Otherwise looks OK, but as there are such extensive references, I'll have another quick check when these have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: greetings! It is nice to hear from you again. I have fixed citation #46 in the meantime (by specifying which footnote was used on that particular page in Yule's book), but we'll have to discuss these other points before moving forward. I was able to find one citation that lacked a letter "p" referring to the page number (ref #106, Grant 2005, p. 99). Having fixed that, I was unable to find any others that lacked the abbreviation for pagination. If you are able to spot any others, please let me know and I will fix them. As to your other queries: unfortunately, even if I chose not to place periods at the end of regular citations, there would still need to be periods at the end of certain citations that contain additional text or references to online sources that require punctuation after stating the date of retrieval. I think I'll just place periods after the end of each citation, but I'd like to hear your input about that first. As for placing a period after "p" or "pp", the academic standard is to provide punctuation after a single "p" but not the double one. Should I go ahead and apply that standard to the article? I meant to do that anyway but must have forgotten or made some minor mistakes. Yours most sincerely, Pericles of AthensTalk 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and decided to be bold, fixing all the citations so that the use of punctuation is now entirely consistent. I hope this is sufficient! Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've never seen ""pp" used on WP, only "pp." and I think it is better done like this so that no-one thinks it is an inconsistency. One other query: "Pulleyblank (1999), p. 77f." is not quite clear: what are we meaning by f here? There are a few possible interpretations, and I think we need to be clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: I have gone through the entire article and placed a period after every "pp" that I could find. Feel free to check it, but I'm almost positive that I got each and every one. As for the Pulleyblank citation, it is one of the very few that I did not personally add to this article. Upon inspection (since I have access to JSTOR and am able to read Pulleyblank's article), it appears that someone made a typo. The "f" doesn't appear to have any relevance at all, and the page numbers should be 77-78, not just "77" alone. I have fixed that. As for the few other citations in the article that I did not add, I can't really remember them, but I can assure you that I do not introduce typos or mistakes into my own citations (I tend to double-check them and actually add material to the article while having a book or article open, so that there's virtually no room for mistakes). Please do let me know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed. Cheers! --Pericles of AthensTalk 22:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for addressing them. I've read through the article again and am happy that all of my points have been dealt with, so I'm glad to lend my support here. Well done! JAGUAR  13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Jaguar

As requested, I'll start doing my source review of the article now. I'll go through all of them and will highlight any issues if I see them:

  • "Wounding an enemy with a firearm often causes them to stagger; if the player is in close range, an icon will appear with the option of a melee attack such as an uppercut or a somersault kick" - none of this is mentioned in the citation given. Could it be in another ref?
Hmm I'm not sure if that was ever sourced. I've just removed it. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Many of the game's cutscenes and boss battles involve quick time events" - the IGN source does mention that boss battles involve quick time events, but not cutscenes
Removed the words 'cutscenes and'.
  • "Customised weapons" - not related to the source review, but is this article supposed to use American spelling throughout?
Fixed.
  • I've spotted a few sources from the development section which aren't archived. It's always best to archive them if possible
Are you sure? I can't see any online sources that aren't archived.
Ah, my fault! When I was accessing the links I deleted the archived url so that the pages would load faster for me. I forgot that I was looking at all the non-archived links the whole time. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Takeuchi said that about three years of "actual development time" were spent on the game, after a year devoted to concept and planning. At its development peak, about 110 people worked on the project." - this needs a citation, as it's not mentioned in the Joystiq interview. I found "Takeuchi explained that next-gen projects easily spend three to five years in development" in the GameSpot source, but I can't find where it says almost 110 people worked on development anywhere else. I'll keep looking, but the first two sentences of the second paragraph in the development section will need citations
Unfortunately I think that was originally backed up by a now dead 1UP.com source. Archive.is has backed up the first and last page of the interview ([30][31]) but thee three pages in the middle appear to be dead forever. I've removed the information as it is can no longer be verified, and have removed the mention in the lead about it as well. I've added some new, unrelated information to fill the space.

I'm halfway through the development section at the moment. Will continue in a few hours! JAGUAR  14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Jaguar. I've attempted to address your concerns. Looking forward to the rest of the source review. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll continue with my source review now. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The package included a Resident Evil Premium Theme for the Xbox 360 Dashboard" - minor, but the dashboard itself isn't mentioned in the source
Found a new source to support it. :)
  • "and was retired in 2012" - not mentioned that it was retired in 2012 in either of the two sources
Removed.
  • "Resident Evil 5 was re-released on Shield Android TV in May 2016" - missing italics
Fixed.
  • "with a physical disc copy following in the Americas on July 12, 2016" - the source only says that the physical copy was released in North America. I think "Americas" refers to both North and South America
Fixed.
  • Ref 43 misspells "channell"
Fixed.
  • "Versus became available for download in Europe and North America on April 7, 2009, on the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store" - might sound better as Versus became available for download in Europe and North America on April 7, 2009 through the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store (not related to the source review but I don't know why I didn't pick this up on my prose review)
Changed.

My review is done. I've checked all of the refs, and those were all of the issues I could find, albeit minor ones. The sources in the reception section are flawless as they match the content perfectly, and I couldn't find any other issues anywhere. Overall this is a solid article and once all of those minor issues are addressed I'll be happy to support again on the sourcing. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

All issues replied to. :) Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them! I will support on the sourcing side of things. Everything checks out for me. JAGUAR  21:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from PanagiotisZois[edit]

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

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

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

Made a few minor changes to the plot. Added that the name of the parasite is Las Plagas on their first mention, that the mind-controlled Jill is the hooded figure (in the hood XD) and a few minor G&S changes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The references are all good except number 22 "The Making of Resident Evil 5" which has beed dead for a few days now. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha what annoying timing. Anyway I've removed the now dead (and unfortunately unarchivable) source and replaced it with three new ones, one for each actor. Freikorp (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In the development section just say "who directed Onimusha and produced Lost Planet". By the way, the link to the first game doesn't specify which one he worked on. "from both RE4 AND the original RE". PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. Both issues fixed. Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Reception section seems to be in order. Only one more section to go. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Overall the "Additional content" section is good but, this might just me I may be having a temporary brain malfunction, the third paragraph is kind of confusing. So Alternative Edition was released only in Japan and its only additional content was LiN. Gold Edition which was released in NA and EU has LiN as well as DE and new outfits/Mercenaries content. But in the third paragraph you say that "In addition to Gold Edition both episodes and costume packs are available as DLC, with two of the eight new Mercenaries Reunion characters bundled with each downloadable item; after buying all five sets of DLC, players own all content on the disc. This only applies to the PlayStation 3 version; the Xbox 360 version has no DLC on the disc. The Xbox 360 version comes with a download token allowing free download of all DLC, and the PlayStation 3 version has all of the new content on disc." Do you mean that the GE additional content was eventually released as DLC for the base games for PS3? I think that specific paragraph needs to be slightly re-written to make it clearer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
After reading through that again I found it confusing also. I ended up just trimming a couple sentences to fix the problem. Let me know if anything still seems out of place. Thanks again PanagiotisZois. Freikorp (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It definately makes more sense now. I have to say, great work on the article. It was one my first RE games so it's nice to see it in such a good condition. I definately support its promotion to FA-status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: We have three supports here, but I'm not quite seeing the depth of review that we really need. PanagiotisZois looks to have given this a fairly good review on content and accuracy, we have a check of the sources from Jaguar, and general comments from the other reviewer. I don't think we have an in-depth prose review yet (and I might ask a few people myself if no-one comes forward) and I would like some assurance that we are fully representing the literature and the article is comprehensive (i.e. a little more on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c). Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro1. Thanks for your comment. I've contacted a couple editors myself seeking the kind of review you are after but haven't had any luck as of yet. if you could ask someone for one I would appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Sarastro1. So we now have a support on prose, though no additional review on content. Where do we go from here? Will this FAC stay open until it gets another review, or are you satisfied it has enough support? I ask as if it needs a further reviewer I will embark on another attempt to find one, though I'm not confident it will have any more success than my last attempt. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This won't be archived any time soon, so you are quite safe taking your time. I think Dank has covered prose, but I still would like more commentary on 1b and 1c. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Andha Naal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Coemgenus: Slightly rephrased the bit, thanks for the support. Vensatry (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Source and image review
  • Just make sure you are consistent with linking publishers. An article about The Hindu exists, so wiki-linking in note 5 would be useful, for instance.
  • We have only one image in the article i.e. the poster that is appropriately licensed and captioned, although you need to provide an alt text. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Your comments have been resolved, FrB.TG.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited -- please revert anything I've screwed up.

  • "Sivanandam asks Usha, who tells him how she and Rajan fell in love": I think "asks" is the wrong verb; it implies a particular question. Do you mean "questions"?
    Changed to 'interrogates'. Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "a Tamilian professor": elsewhere you use "Tamil" as the adjective form; is there some reason to say "Tamilian" here? Are the terms interchangeable?
    Tamil professor would mean that he taught Tamil at St. Xavier's College, Kolkata. 'Tamilian' denotes his ethnicity. Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we get a link for the first use of "₹"? Most readers won't recognize it.
    Unfortunately, there seems to be some issue with the template itself. Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Not sure what the problem is -- I added a link here; is there an issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of "Themes and influences", I'd suggest cutting the titles of Vest's and Pillai's books; they're given in the citations, and it interrupts the flow to include them in the main text.
    I'm not sure if the author is same as the namesake investigative journalist. If that isn't the case, the book carries more weight than the author. Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    OK, but the book title and author are both available in the footnote. Currently we have "According to Jason P. Vest's Spike Lee: Finding the Story and Forcing the Issue, the three films follow a nonlinear narrative by presenting diverging accounts of the same incident. In his 2015 book Madras Studios, film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai notes that Andha Naal is unrelated to Rashomon except for its whodunit plot, where the murder is explored using various angles." About half of this text is just describing where we got the information, and we have no reason to believe it's particularly interesting to the reader, do we? I'd suggest "Film journalist Jason Vest describes the three films as following a nonlinear narrative by presenting diverging accounts of the same incident. Film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai notes that Andha Naal is unrelated to Rashomon except for its whodunit plot, where the murder is explored using various angles." Actually this makes it clearer that the sentences are a little too plainly declarative; we could probably link the second one to the following sentence, but let's see if we agree on this first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed, done Vensatry (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "When she discovers that her husband has betrayed India, she does not hesitate to kill him": but she does hesitate, doesn't she? According to the plot section, she changed her mind.
    There seems to be some discrepancy with the source. Will leave this to the co-nom. Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    It would be better to re-watch the film on YouTube and find out. I currently can't do that since I'm travelling, but I'll return this night. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Rephrased the bit Vensatry (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    I reworded it; "goes to the extent of killing him" seemed a bit clumsy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The film was later re-released after winning the Certificate of Merit for the Second Best Feature Film in Tamil at the 2nd National Film Awards": suggest giving the year of re-release here; a reader unfamiliar with the award might not realize this was the very next year.
    The source isn't clear either. Mentioned the year of ceremony. Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What's the reason for the hidden comments at the top of a couple of sections? They appear to only contain URLs.
    Removed Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "in accordance with international parameters": what does this mean?
    Removed Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note [a] seems to say the same thing three times: what's the difference between the "widely considered" claim and Saravanan's claim? And Guy's claim seems less broad; he's only talking about south India, so why is that worth mentioning if we've established that it's the first in all of India?
    Limca Book of Records' claim cannot be disregarded; it's the Indian version of Guinness World Records. The South Indian cinema (it's a subset of Indian cinema) bit seems reasonable to me as it's a well-established fact supported by a book published by the NFDC. Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    That's not quite what I meant. I meant to say that you have three claims in that footnote: "Indian cinema's first sound film without songs", "the first songless film in India", and "the first of its kind in the whole of South Indian cinema". These all say more or less the same thing, don't they? Except that the last one only mentions South India? Why do we need to say the same thing three times? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Principally, all three claims are nearly one and the same. But isn't it good to note 'perspectives' and 'facts'? Vensatry (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean. If I assert the sky is blue, I may want to put in more than one citation, but I wouldn't write "The sky is blue, according to Joe Scientist; Jane Scientist also says the sky is blue; and another scientist said the sky is blue too." I'd write "The sky is blue.[1][2][3]" What are you suggesting is different about this situation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Not sure the "sky" analogy works here because it's clearly a case of WP:OBVIOUS. Okay, consider this: Telugu film actor Brahmanandam holds the Guinness record for having acted in most films (~700) in a single language – this is an established 'fact' (strictly) according to the Guinness Book of Records. On the other hand, multiple sources claim that the late Tamil actress Manorama supposedly had more than 1,500 screen credits (with majority of those being in one language); however, her record did not make it to the Guinness. Now, how would you clarify this in both of their articles? Vensatry (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    I wrote a reply to this and then realized I'd been misreading something in the note. Sorry! It's fine as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments. Would you mind revisiting the nom? Vensatry (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll take another look this evening; thanks for the ping -- I meant to check in on this last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Out of time for now; will follow up on the remaining points tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Any update yet? Vensatry (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear -- I did revisit after my note above, and I responded to all the remaining points. There are still a couple of unstruck points above that I don't think are dealt with yet -- the one about the book authors and titles, and the one about footnote a. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: My bad, I've hopefully resolved your concerns. Thanks, Vensatry (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Mike Christie, after rewatching parts of the film on YouTube, I corrected some plot points. Can you please review my last change? Also, Muktha Srinivasan is credited onscreen by his real name V. Srinivasan, and he did not get the "Muktha" prefix until 1961, when he launched Muktha Films, named after his nephew. How do we balance this? Do we write V. Srinivasan – who later became popularly known as Muktha Srinivasan – assisted Balachander with this film? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Your change looks fine, and I like the suggested "later became popularly known as". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Please refer to my comments at the peer review here, I'm continuing it from there.

  • Thrillers do use elements of suspense to sustain their narrative. What is the reason for specifically mentioning it as a mystery-thriller?
I don't know; perhaps because the entire mystery of the film is who killed Rajan? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Who did it? is always a suspense. Anyways, anything to say Vensatry?
I'm no expert, but this should be referenced. Vensatry (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is possible. So, assuming good faith here. What to do, is left to the nominators and other reviewers.
  • Can we have sub sections for Production section a la Mayabazar?
I hope that can be done. But the section's length and mixed up content is the obstacle to splitting it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
No compulsion.
  • Please follow WP:FILMRATING
    Vensatry and Mike Christie, the "U" certificate sentence is fine, is it? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, I think so -- the rating given is the Indian one, which is what's relevant to this film; seems reasonable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Oh! is that so! I'm so sorry then. I was ignorant of that.
  • Researcher and ethnographer Preeti Mudliar compared Ratha Kanneer (1954) to Andha Naal because in both films, "the sin of foreignness is [neutralised] by a chaste Tamil woman, the virtuous wife". -- I find this more appropriate in the Themes section.
Actually, RK came afterwards. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable.
  • Given Chimbu Deven's acknowledgement, can we know what exactly it was on his directorial?
In the credits of Deven's film, it is acknowledged as an influence on that film's plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable. Pavanjandhyala 16:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support — My concerns are addressed and i have nothing else to say. Pavanjandhyala 09:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: I read this few weeks ago and was kind of impressed with the article. Definitely FA-worthy. Congrats Kailash29792!Krish | Talk 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Glancing over this with a view to promotion, I'm not entirely convinced that we are there on prose. For example, "critic"-based words are overused in the reception section, and "film" is overused in the production section. There also appear to be a few run-on sentences ("After watching Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950) at a film festival, director Sundaram Balachander was inspired by it and wrote a play in the same narrative style") and possibly a few instances of redundancy, albeit nothing major. I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this. If nothing happens in a few days, I'd be prepared to recuse and have a go myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro1. I hope an admin will conduct an image, prose and source review soon. As for offline sources, I have them uploaded online, and will share if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

I think the prose is OK after input now from quite a number of people. I've made some suggestions myself, including to the example that Sarastro1 has raised above. I also have three sourcing issues thus far:

  • "Andha Naal is set in World War II, during the bombing of the Indian city of Madras by Japanese forces in 1943. Residents of the city moved to nearby hill stations to protect themselves from further bombings and invasion." - It seems to me that Bayly and Harper at page 192 are talking about events in 1942, not during the bombings of 1943. The chapter is entitled "1942" and there is no talk of Madras actually being bombed: only unfulfilled rumours that it might be attacked.
Replaced with another source. Vensatry (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote 33, cited on four occasions, is a dead link.
Done: added the field deadurl=unfit. But the archived link still works. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Production" twice cites this reference to explain the history of how the film came to be produced. On each occasion the information is based on quotes from Balachander's wife Shanta. I don't think the article can take her word as gospel: anything she says needs to be attributed to her rather than spoken in Wikipedia's voice as if it were incontrovertible fact. This becomes a particular issue because the article states unambiguously in the "Production" section that the storyline was inspired by Rashomon. This statement is based on footnote 5 and Mrs Balachander. But the article later says, based on other references, that this is highly debatable.
I see your point. Given that the film is very old it's difficult to find information about the production. If we were to remove the bit, we would miss out on the context. What do you suggest? Vensatry (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree the content is important. You could possibly attribute it to Mrs Balachander. For example, "According to Balachander's wife...", or "In [YEAR], Balachander's wife recounted that..." Syek88 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks Vensatry (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I also made one significant series of changes here. In hindsight I should have left that to the article's authors. The article repeatedly referred to the term "murder" to describe the precipitating event of the plot. I think this is the wrong word. There was no murder: Rajan was killed, accidentally, by his wife. Even if the event were a murder, neither the investigator characters nor the audience would have known that, so it would be unsafe to say, as the article did: "Purushothaman Naidu, a local police inspector, arrives at Rajan's house and starts investigating the murder." I think the article should refer to a "killing", a "death", or similar, when it describes the precipitating event. Please undo me if I have acted upon a grave misapprehension. Syek88 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, he wasn't 'assassinated'. Vensatry (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Syek88 thanks for this, very helpful. Are you happy with the prose and sourcing now? If so, I think this is good to go. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. Vensatry might still be considering my third point but I am happy to support on faith that it will be done. It is not a big issue in any case. Syek88 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Syek88, just two things left to clarify: can translated titles be added to the non-English sources? Also, there is a footnote reading "the Film Preservation and Restoration Workshop India 2016 gives it's exact length as 13,165 feet" (source). I don't know how to rephrase this footnote, but I know it needs to be rephrased. After reading, can you please suggest something? --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I think translated titles would be good. I had noticed the Tamil titles in the footnotes and felt it didn't give much of a clue as to what the references were about. I deleted an apostrophe from the footnote - otherwise the footnote looked OK to me. Syek88 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Syek88: Thanks for the copyedits and review; both are much appreciated. Vensatry (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure - I've marked my comments as a support. Syek88 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Syek88: Thanks for the support. The problem with adding translations (for titles) is they mostly border WP:OR. Besides, there needs to be some consistency over figurative/literal usages. And, Tamil dailies are notorious for using colloquial phrases for which there are no English translations available. If the reviewers want to have a clue about the titles, they can very well be explained in the talk page. Vensatry (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that translating the title of a reference amounts to original research; we translate all the time. The Founding Ceremony of the Nation is another article nominated here at the moment in which the titles of Chinese-language sources are translated into the footnotes. But your point about untranslatable colloquial titles could be insurmountable! Syek88 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments from Carbrera[edit]

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

Drive-by comment from Moisejp[edit]

  • "Dibango's attorneys brought the case before a court in Paris, demanding €500,000 in damages and for Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music to be "barred from receiving 'mama-say mama-sa'-related income until the matter is resolved".[4]" Is there any information on how those legal proceedings ended up? Your source says "French judges will announce on 17 February [2009] whether they will hear the case." Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This source in Radio France Internationale says that the judge on Feb. 17 ruled against Dibango but it sounds like the latter was expected to appeal the decision. [[32]] Here is another source in La Presse about the same ruling: [[33]] I did a quick Google search and couldn't find news about any later developments, but quit after 5 search pages—but if you want you could see what you could find. In any case, you should probably add mention of the judge's decision. If you happen to need help with the details in the French articles, just let me know. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey Moisejp! Thanks for the comment. I remember when I was writing the article (3 or 4 yrs ago) I didn't have any luck finding sources about what happened after the lawsuit, same as now. I am really bad with French, so maybe if you have time you can translate what you found in this sources and add it to the article (if it's not too much trouble)? — Tom(T2ME) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll try to do so in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm working on it now. By the way, it looks like you have at least two raw URL references that need fixing: #77 and #111. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Tomica, as you saw, I've added info about the February 17 court ruling. This is my best translation of the French sources, although I'm not a legal expert and can't guarantee there might not be more precise legal terms to use. One other side note, I would like to recommend that you archive all of your sources (as I did for the two I added). I'll admit that I only recently became converted to this practice, but I'm now a strong believer in its benefits. Of course it's up to you, but it's just generally a good idea. Good luck with the article, and take care. :-) Moisejp (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Both of the subtitles from the first two images in the body of the article repeat the line about the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. It seems a little unnecessarily repetitive to me, but this may just be a stylistic preference.
  • I do not think you need to repeat the full title of the song ("Don't Stop the Music") in such close proximity in the first paragraph of the "Development and release" section. I think it would stronger to just say "It was recorded at..." instead.
  • Do you have any information about the lyrical interpretation of the single? I was just wondering after comparing this article to "S&M" and I noticed the absence of that information in this article. The parts about the composition are very good though.
  • @Tomica: Great job with the article. These are the only points that I have noticed. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Aoba47 Thank you for your comments Aoba. I think I resolved the first two issues :) Check to see if it's better now. While for the third one, "DSTM" was released in 2007 while "S&M" in 2011, so a lot of online sources are dead from back then and that's all that I found for the 'Composition' section. I know that it can be more complex, however, I think I used maximum of the available online sources. Again, thanks for the comments and praise! — Tom(T2ME) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • "he allegedly approved the request without contacting Dibango beforehand"..... if possible, I would try to use something more definitive than "allegedly"
  • Well, I opened the source and read the original publishing, it really says that. I don't have an idea, how would I re-write that. If you have something on your mind, feel free to share :)
  • "compared 'Don't Stop the Music' to Rihanna's 2006 single, 'SOS'" could use some elaboration; go into how Slant felt they were similar
  • He is not specific at all, just compares it to it :/
  • "After the release of Rihanna's single 'Only Girl (In the World)' in 2010, many critics compared its composition and structure to 'Don't Stop the Music'"..... same as before
    They really just elaborate more for "Only Girl" which is important for that article not really here, IMO EW's comment is the only one who could be featured here as well
  • In that case, it would be better to only mention the EW review for this comparison Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Already menionted it :)
  • While "Rihanna's 20 Biggest Billboard Hits" is really more about commercial performance, I would contain a quote along with its ranking
  • Added quote
  • "In 2008, the song was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" is outdated when it's gone 5x platinum in Australia
  • Fixed it
  • Just remember to update the ref as well! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Shoot, totally forgot that. Fixed now — Tom(T2ME) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So far looking pretty good. I'll go through this again later and perhaps conduct an image review. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it! :) — Tom(T2ME) 19:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking through again.....

  • The only glaring problem I find is how the About.com link used says nothing about this video; please replace the URL or remove that bit entirely
  • Removed it :'( Now the section is even shorter than it was, About.com update the article on the same article and sadly I haven't had archived it
  • For live performances, four digits are preferred for years per this discussion. Could you perhaps add commentary for her performances of this track, even if part of a tour review?
  • In "Credits and personnel", psuedo-headings (using bold text and especially ";") are discouraged for accessibility concerns

That should be it.Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • SNUGGUMS I think I resolved the last issue. For the commentary, there is no significant mention of how she performed, or what she wore, it's just that she performed it along some other dance hits "Pon de Replay" and "SOS". — Tom(T2ME) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I now support this for FAC following its improvements. A job very well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Media review[edit]

Image and sample review complete. I find nothing of concern. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you :) — Tom(T2ME) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This has been open for quite a long time now (and listed at the FAC urgents page), and I think we are in danger of going stale with only one support in all this time. I'm afraid if nothing happens in the next few days, this will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we probably just need a source review, unless I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Harry[edit]

Music is not my area of expertise but I quite like this song and seeing as the review seems to be struggling for input, I'll take a look. Obviously take my comments with an appropriate dose of salt.

  • StarGate, with Michael Jackson receiving This isn't a great use of "with" in professional writing, especially not in the second sentence of the lead.
  • Done/Adjusted it a little bit. Hopefully, reads better
  • praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook Do you think it's necessary to repeat "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" here?
  • I am afraid so. I know it's a long word, but at the same time I don't want the readers to be confused
  • number one in more than 10 countries Is there a reason not to give the exact number? Also, switching between numerals and words is discouraged by MOS:NUMERAL.
  • I did now, it was actually less than 10 if you see the table (great that you pointed). Also, I chose words for the numbers
  • with additional songwriting by Tawanna Dabney and Michael Jackson.[a] It's surprising that you use the footnote to explain Jackson's relevance in the body, when you mention it in the prose in the second sentence of the lead. If it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead, I'd be inclined to put it in the prose in the body.
  • I changed it and now it corresponds with the lead
  • The song samples the line "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" from Jackson's 1983 Ah, perhaps this is the place to explain why Jackson gets credit? It wold also reduce repetition.
  • I clarified it in the first paragraph and just removed this part in the latter section
  • This was due to the fact is again not really professional-quality writing
  • Removed the phrase.
  • territories including Australia, Italy, New Zealand and Spain Just out of curiosity, why "territories" and not "countries"?
  • Changed to countries
  • four-minute, 27-second mixing words and numeral again
  • Adjusted it!

Other than the above, the article seems very well put-together and, based on a quick look, comparable to other featured articles on individual songs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell Harry thanks you so much for the review you. Appreciate it! Hopefully my responds/edits worked for you :) Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. This is much, much better and easier to follow. Just FYI, you don't need to write out all the numbers; the MoS just doesn't like you mixing numerals and words in the same sentence. Regardless, I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Harry :) — Tom(T2ME) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Don't Stop the Music screenshot.png this non-free image does not have an appropriate rationale (Purpose of use "To illustrate in the article"?) Per WP:NFCC#8—contextual significance—the music video would only need to be pictured if it contains a scene that could not be adequately described with sourced text alone. Since it's a simple image of her dancing in a club, it's completely understood without the need for an image. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The change from "territories" to "countries" may be in error, as iTunes has stores for a few places (Hong Kong, Macau) which are not countries. Reference 9, next to it, also doesn't contain any information about the date of release (only the year) or the territories the EP was released in aside from Australia. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Moisejp[edit]

Sorry these are late in the game, Tomica. I hope you can quickly address these within the time period of the FAC. These are all in the Composition and Release & reception sections:

  • Neither the Fair Use Rationale of File:Rihanna - Don't Stop the Music.ogg nor its caption say specifically how this sound clip illustrates the song in a way that words alone could not. Whenever I do FURs and captions for sound clips, I try to include points directly mentioned in the article that the sound clip can be said to illustrate in a way that words alone could not. In your case, you could say (for example) that it contributes to the "pulsating musical structure" and that it adds to the effect of the song's powerful beat (a paraphrase of "blur[s] into the track's overpowering beat").
  • The FUR notes that the sound clip is under 30 seconds, but what is more relevant is that it is under 10% of the song's length. Sound clips must be under 10% or under 30 seconds, whichever is less—so the 30 seconds is only relevant for songs 5 minutes or longer.
  • "After the release of Rihanna's single "Only Girl (In the World)" in 2010, Brad Wete from Entertainment Weekly described "Only Girl" as a "stronger" and "sexier version" of "Don't Stop the Music"." This feels like weak filler content that does not add to the reader's understanding of the composition of "Don't Stop the Music". I would recommend removing it.
  • There are a lot of direct quotations in these two sections—I would argue there are more than is ideal. I know it's not always easy to paraphrase music quotes and get the exact nuance, but I urge you to try to paraphrase at least two or three of them. For example, "we defy you to get the hook from this pounding 2007 dancefloor favorite out of your mind" should be easy to paraphrase. Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor Public Library[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration: the Briarcliff Manor Public Library. This is part of a good topic about Briarcliff Manor I've been helping write as part of a volunteer position at the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or edit the article. I'd hope you can help make the article even better – I believe there's always room for improvement. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Review by Fencer2013[edit]

I thought that this article was excellent. It was a good summary of the Library's history, and made great use of relevant pictures. The references were also cited correctly, and the dates used for this article were very accurate.Fencer2013 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Support: I read this article thoroughly and support that it should be a featured article. The article is thorough in its presentation of the facts and the organization of the material is excellent. The images are also of excellent quality and I especially like the map of the Historical Library Locations that has the images of each location hyperlinked to the respective pin on the map.Ajfeist (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry[edit]

I have some comments but am not doing a full featured article review.

First, it surprises me that there is so much coverage of this library. This is a library in a town of 8000 people. I know that this library serves some other nearby communities outside of its city limits, but most libraries in major cities fail to even meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. This library has been the particular subject of attentive journalism by major media sources. I know this place is near New York City, but articles like these

are rare for any library. The staff at this library must have excellent public relations skills. There are lots of organizations with much larger budgets doing much more unusual work than a community library and which seek to get media coverage but fail to do so. I bring this up because whereas no amount of research will get many topics to Wikipedia's feature article status just for lack of coverage, I think that this unusual library actually has enough coverage to make it eligible to pass.

I question the "operations" section. While some people might expect that an encyclopedia article about an organization would be sure to cover that organization's basic functions, Wikipedia has upheld a long-standing tension and conflict to avoid summarizing primary sources about organizations' products and services. There have been tens of thousands of requests by companies and organizations in every country and every sector, and the status quo has been to tell organizations that the Wikipedia article covering them would reflect only what third party sources saw fit to describe in journalism and research. Some of the information in this section is of the sort that does sometimes go into Wikidata and infoboxes, and some might be excessive coverage as compared to what Wikipedia allows. I like libraries but if there is a concession here that favoritism weakens Wikipedia's integrity when we forbid commercial organizations from making the same demand. Anyone wanting to help Wikipedia establish better policy could jump into the 20,000 page 10 year conversation and epic drama centered at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Some images like the one at File:Briarcliff library expansion 21.jpg seem to be in conflict with Commons' requirements for copyright clearance. I do not feel that the rationales given in the copyright section would pass Commons review, like for example, if "BMSHS owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control" then still without a copyright release the Commons community would delete the file. "If The BMSHS makes its content available for personal and non-commercial educational uses consistent with the principles of fair use." then a low resolution version of the file can be hosted on English Wikipedia, but going forward, I recommending asking Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright for tough advice. I expect they would perform deletion within hours of raising the question.

In the "Librarians (1921–1955)" table I am unable to understand the sourcing system. Many different sources are cited and I do not see whether they all back this information. It seems more likely that this information is coming from different sources. Somehow, I wish the sources could be connected in an obvious way to the information which they back.

Other things could be said. These are my starting comments. I might comment again after someone else has done more review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry, I am glad for your critique. Your analysis of notability is good, however it doesn't mention the notable art exhibits or historical and architectural significance, both of the library and of the former train station, which I feel adds to the importance of this topic over that of numerous local libraries. Nevertheless I believe articles can be created for most libraries, perhaps even FAs if enough research is done.
As for the operations section - while I believe articles in general are meant to summarize independent sources, FAs (based on their criteria) are also meant to summarize all relevant aspects of the topic. Also I noted in the last review that specifics such as opening hours and days are common and accepted in articles and there should otherwise be a guideline against it. I noted that the article Supreme Court of the United States has had operating hours information since at least 2010. It's hard to rely on precedents as there are only six FAs in WikiProject Organizations and no FAs for public libraries (and WMFLabs hasn't seemed to work recently), so I can only rely on the fact that this is neutral information that is important to readers. Anyway, most of this section is backed by independent sources and all is verifiable by independent sources, however self-published sources are not being used improperly here, according to the linked policy.
As for the image licensing, I initially used an improper license for archives files and was notified by a Commons administrator. Later and with permission, I duplicated the license adopted by the Smithsonian Institution; this license and the Smithsonian's (and images under these licenses) have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by various Commons administrators. I don't believe this is worth creating another issue over, and regardless of specific terminology, institutions that can verify that to the best of their knowledge the images have no known copyright restrictions have been able to upload files to Commons for years. Please see Commons:Category:No known restrictions license tags and understand that your objections are against likely tens or hundreds of thousands of files and many uploaders. I can remove and simplify some language to make it more in line with most of those tags however.
As for the table, I didn't see it as essential to link up each citation with each fact; many if not most articles' tables just include a list of sources at the end to prevent clutter. I'll try it in-line. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding.
I am still unsure about operations, but I can agree that the situation is uncertain and there are limited precedents. Besides FAs, there are precedents in all sorts of articles. You made an editorial decision to present some things. For libraries, many people wish to list special collections, because besides location that is what typically makes a particular library different from others. Other primary source information which is sometimes presented are the fields in the user box, lawsuits, budget and pay of director, and major donors. There is no consensus to consistently put all of these things in based on primary sources, but I confirm that sometimes information like the kind you presented is included, so I can go with that.
I continue to have doubts about that image. I fail to recognize how the "no known restrictions" tag applies because there is a known restriction - the image is copyrighted and the copyright holder has not applied a free license to it. The "no known restrictions" tag is typically used for images which seem published before 1923 and in the public domain, but which may implausibly have been published later or in a government which has a copyright term of more than 95 years. That library picture is fewer than 10 years old and you identify a copyright holder who has not applied a free license to it. Can you show me any comparable case where a picture after 1989 (a year significant in the Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart) uses the "no known restrictions" tag?
Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There are no known restrictions; the images had been the property of the library, taken by the former library director as part of an information page about the library's extension and hosted on the library's website. The current director knows of this and passed on those files as well as a whole binder full of historical library images and print publications to the village historical society. These are just a few of the other documents included:
  • "Tiny Rail Station Losing Loneliness". The New York Times. November 17, 1957. p. 123 – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. 
  • "Todd School Library Site Urged". The Reporter Dispatch. April 14, 1955 – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. 
  • Reibel, Jane D. (May 10, 1965). Briarcliff Manor's Community Library: A Fifty Year History. American Libraries – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. 
  • After 44 years - A spacious, economical, convenient new home for the Briarcliff Free Library. Briarcliff Manor, New York: Briarcliff Free Library, Inc. 1958 – via Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. 
Though I believe this discussion is more appropriate elsewhere, sure here are a plenty of post-1989 no known copyright images, and I can link plenty more:
ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay Bluerasberry, I changed the references on the table as you recommended. I also added a reference to the operations section, so now the only self-published information about the library is in the first two sentences. I have outdated sources that cite similar information to those sentences, however that content changes too frequently (combined with the obscurity of the topic) to likely find any sources except the library itself. However as stated, self-published sources are by policy okay so long as the content isn't controversial or extreme. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
Good job with in-line references. Associating people with organizations can get contentious since lots of organizations try to do this with dubious sourcing. This seems resolved.
I can leave the operations section content aside. Stepping away from this FA, if you would like to talk more somewhere else about proposing a policy for what sort of primary source information should be in articles, especially for biographies and organizations, then I would be interested in drafting and signing off on some proposal. Data in the infobox is one common proposal, and you listed the director and budget there which is common and less controversial. In the body of the article you choose operating hours, administration system, institutional affiliations, and a service listing. No one should dispute that this is factual, but there is limited real estate in the Wikipedia article. Practically every commercial organization seeks to have a product and service listing in Wikipedia. Whereas those are dismissed routinely, when it comes to nonprofit organizations sometimes there is more sympathy for citing nonprofit sources. I get uneasy about this being allowed for nonprofits and prohibited to for-profits without a policy confirming that Wikipedia permits one thing and prohibits the other. Other public sources present a range of other information, like the fact of any lawsuits and sources of income, which practically all organizations would seek to obscure. In the case of libraries, museums, and archives some critical information desired by the Wikipedia community is a listing of special collections, which along with location is a major distinguishing factor of one institution to the next. What you did with operations might not be wrong but I also will not say that it is without controversy.
You are correct that there seems to be a history of using the "no known copyright restrictions" alone on Commons. I was not aware of this. I thought that the intended use of that tag was to be paired with another copyright tag. I am ready to confirm that your use of this tag is no different from what professionals at prestigious organizations have done. If the Brooklyn Museum and Smithsonian are doing this with images, then no burden to further rationalize this should be on you or these images, so I can withdraw my objection and give approval.
At this point all of my objections have been answered and I would defend this article on all these grounds if the issues were raised again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Image Review by PointsofNoReturn[edit]

I have reviewed the images that are in the article. The images are either done by or have no known copyright restrictions from the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society. They are 100% allowed on Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons). For the content of the images, all the images are relevant to the article and illustrate the topic at hand well. The captions are perfectly adequate for the images they describe. Thus, I believe that this article passes the media portion of the featured article criteria. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Ah. I see that this has been around since the end of January, but has only just been transcluded. With only one support, it has suffocated, and has little chance of promotion as it stands. However, as this was a "filing" mistake, I'd be prepared to archive this and allow the nominator to immediately renominate without the usual two week wait. If it is transcluded this time, it might have a fighting chance. The alternative is to leave it here, where it has little chance of success, and with the best will in the world, I can't justify leaving this open much more than one more week. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: One support? I count four people... FACs should be better-arranged to attract more commentators. I've had this problem for years - few people even leave any comment on any of my FACs, and FACs are arranged to fail if few people do. It's quite honestly silly. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There is only one person who has stated that they support. Also, you will not attract reviews if t