Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

The FAC coordinators—Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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 {{ArticleHistory}}.

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Today's featured article:

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]

Megadeth[edit]

Nominator(s): Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Megadeth, an American heavy metal band. I've been actively working on it since November 2013, and since then it has successfully passed the GA procedure. Additionally, it has been copyedited and went through a peer review recently. I'm aware that there might be some weak areas, but in general, I believe the article covers well the band's history.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn[edit]

Nominator(s): TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Sega Saturn, a video game console that was released during a period of significant upheaval in the industry. 3D gaming hit its stride and Sony's PlayStation shifted the paradigm with unprecedented mainstream success, but for every successful gamble there were those that didn't pan out. Certain companies and genres fell by the wayside, as they failed to foresee the threat posed by the admittedly rudimentary early 3D games. The Nintendo 64 stuck with cartridges over CDs and lost much of the third-party support Nintendo's previous systems had enjoyed. Although Sega's Saturn launched before the PlayStation and the Nintendo 64, and enjoyed moderate success in Japan due to the popularity of Sega's Virtua Fighter and a few RPGs exclusive to the Japanese market, the console's commercial failure was arguably the beginning of the end for Sega as a hardware manufacturer. The Saturn was a troubled system--tainted from birth by the last-minute addition of an extra video display processor to compete with Sony, rushed to launch in North America months before most software was ready, a catalyst for disagreement and division between the American and Japanese branches of Sega, abruptly discontinued to make way for the upcoming Sega Dreamcast--yet it is still revered by hardcore fans as perhaps Sega's finest hour as a game developer, and remains the subject of much debate over things Sega might have done differently.

This article has gone through a number of restructurings to reach the level of quality you see today. Indrian's thoughtful historical research and keen insight has assisted me in polishing Red Phoenix's Good Article to the point where it now surpasses the wildest expectations I had at the time of my first edit. It is my honor to submit Sega Saturn here for consideration as a FA, as I believe it fully satisfies all of Wikipedia's criteria for what a FA should be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Image Review

  • I don't think the image is needed at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair point. The backup cartridge isn't even mentioned in the article.
Personally, I'd make a collage of four images for the bottom one (it allows for a larger thumbnail and thus easier viewing). I'd cut the Model 2 controller. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that one of the four links used for the graph of Sega's financial trouble has died. If this is going to be a problem, I will gladly remove it. Because all of these images were here before I began involvement, I can't really say why both the Japanese and International logos are used, although I would speculate it may be related to the fact that the Saturn sold more units in Japan than the rest of the world combined.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel like it's standard practice in these articles to use the two major relevant logos. If only one is kept, I would say it should be the JP logo. But, ideally both should be there. (I have not contributed anything to this article, at least not that I recall). After I go through and do my images review on Sega CD, I'll take a look at this article and consider a review.--SexyKick 22:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking at the Genesis, it appears you are correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and yes; it would be great if you could remove the background from the Arcade Racer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey TTAAC, you know you can get link archives if a link dies on you, right? Even if the link is already dead, crawlers like web.archive.org might have an archived version of the page, or if it's a link from a publication, you could always remove the URL and cite just the publication itself if it's available in print. Just a thought. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but it seems that even the Wayback Machine stops working on occasion. I wouldn't feel comfortable citing a print version of Sega's 2002 Annual Report, because I've never seen it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - Did you let Red Phoenix know about this nomination? I mean he did help get this article to GA status. GamerPro64 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I pinged him both in the talk page section where I first suggested nomination, and in my comment above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of this nomination. Total props to TTAAC and Indrian for fine work here. I'm too significant a contributor to support or oppose in my opinion, but not enough of one to take credit for the FAC nom at all - all of that goes to the nominating editor in this case. Depending on my available time, I may have a look and suggest some comments, however, given it's been some time since I've really looked it over. Also, quickly to TheTimesAreAChanging - congrats on your first FAC. Red Phoenix let's talk... 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the history of the KFC restaurant chain. This article was nominated once before and was listed for four months before being failed. It received four Supports and one Oppose. Farrtj (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I'm surprised this wasn't promoted the last time. I'm leaning towards supporting this well-written history, and just have a couple of minor comments:

  • Is the infobox necessary? It's identical (and hence redundant) to the one in the parent KFC article. Besides, most of its info—current leadership, finances, products etc—isn't relevant to this history article.
I've followed the model of the Burger King sequence of pages. I like it because it links all of the KFC-related pages under a common banner, and provides a very brief but quick sketch of the company. But I'd be willing to debate the issue. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's so for all groups of articles (for eg: the albums/songs/members of a band), but usually the common banner is the template at the bottom. And I understand that it provides an overview, but it is simply not a relevant overview.
If you still prefer to have an infobox, you should make it summarise this article—history of ownership, various firsts, landmarks in turnover/profits/number of stores etc.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm fond of the infobox. Tom (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The article's content is quite interesting, but it is under-served by the dull section headers. Try to come up with less-formulaic (they're just the owners KFC) and more descriptive titles, that are sort of like teasers for their contents. If necessary reorganise the sections according to themes in that period of history, such as rising sales, international growth etc. (By this I don't mean rewrite anything, just fiddle around with the section headers around to see if there's a more optimal way to organise the article)
I have reworked some of the titles: let me know what you think. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Much better.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • More photographs wouldn't hurt. There's plenty to choose from—nuggets, tower burgers, the chicken pot pie, the double down and Crispy Strips. This image too.—indopug (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I have added the boycott photo. Will look into adding more food related photos. Farrtj (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Have added a Double Down photo. Farrtj (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Excellent article that should've been promoted the last time. It can serve as a model for corporate-history articles.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed this article. I copyedited it and am just taking one last look before I can support. Good work. --John (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. I appreciate your edits. Farrtj (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support I agree with the support comment above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Kate (1985)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC) and --12george1 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the latest hurricane in history to strike the United States. It was an anomaly, one of the strongest hurricanes in the month of November and one that proves that hurricane season really does last through November. There was some decent damage in Cuba and Florida, culminating the end to a very rough hurricane season that included Hurricane Elena, Hurricane Gloria, and Hurricane Juan (1985). Enjoy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I also wanted to invite User:12george1 to co-nominate the article, as I might be too busy to handle it. Also, due to the article being largely done last year, this will not be for the Wikicup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are my comments: YE Pacific Hurricane 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "and the latest hurricane to impact the country on record. " Really don't like this. First, it wasn't the way you worded it as Hurricane Iwa impacted the island on November 24, not November 21. Also, instead "hurricane", you should clarify and say "hurricane intensity" cause you could mean tropical cyclone.
  • "the intensification of a region of high pressure to the cyclone's north caused Kate to turn westward" what's a "high pressure"? You sohuld link it.
  • And you "sohuld" know what a high pressure is :P--12george1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • " and Kate transitioned to an extratropical cyclone a day after exiting the coastline of North Carolina, on November 23." did it exist the coastline on the 23rd or become ET then?
  • " Damage totaled roughly $400 million [nb 2]," put the note after the comma.
  • ", including sea surface temperatures of 81 °F (27 °C)" is that really abnormal for late November?
  • "120 mph (190 km/h) at around 1200 UTC on November 20.[4]" cut either "at" or "around.
  • "with most citizens on the island rode out the storm in their homes." change "rode" to "riding".
  • "Kate was the first hurricane along the Florida Panhandle since Hurricane Eloise in 1975.[7] " first hurricane to do what? nominate an article for FAC? :P
  • Nope, but it seems like Erick 07 was the first to nominate itself for merge :P --12george1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "and about 500 homes and businesses were severely damaged.[33]" given you say "people and businesses", could you say "buildings" instead here. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The cotton, soybean, and pecan crops suffered heavy losses, estimated at around $50 million. Property and utility damage was also estimated at $50 million, and damage from flash flooding was estimated at $1 million.[26]" you use estimated three times in a short period of words, consider mixing it up and saying something like "assessed" or "placed".

Otherwise, it's good. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hurricanehink, 12george1. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Voting Rights Act of 1965[edit]

Nominator(s): –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a landmark piece of U.S. federal legislation that is a signature achievement of the 1950s-1960s Civil Rights Movement. It is a subject that continues to be of great importance to elections today and is currently a hot topic in Congress and federal courts. The article covers the Act's background, legislative history, provisions, impact, and constitutionality. I have worked on this article extensively since last June (and created two child articles), and it is now comprehensive and thoroughly cites to reliable sources. The article was promoted to GA status after a rigorous review by RJaguar3, and after further polishing, I believe the article now satisfies the FA criteria. I welcome any further feedback; thank you for your time! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Meticulously well-sourced and good layout. Quite thorough and comprehensive. Great use of structure to organize and present the material on an important subject matter in an educational fashion. Thank you for contributing this quality improvement project to Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment This article is quite good and well-organised as Cirt says. The prose can become a little verbose at times, so it needs a copy-edit. I have already taken a shot at trimming the Background section.

Looking at the references though I see a potential issue: why are so many court cases and legislations directly used as citations? They are primary sources and us interpreting them directly (rather than via reliable secondary sources) could original research rules.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help copyediting, indopug; I agree with most of your edits thus far, though I'll take a more thorough look later today. Primary sources are cited for the sake of completeness and so readers know where to find them; they don't replace secondary sources, but supplement them. According to MOS:LAW, "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both." I've tried to follow this to the letter, and outside of a couple direction quotations, every piece of content that cites to a legal primary source also cites to a secondary source. If one were to strip this article of all of its primary sources, the entirety of it (outside of a few direct quotations) should continue to stand. With that in mind, I may restore some of the constitutional citations you removed from the Background section; any interpretation of the constitution that may exist there is supported by the secondary sources cited within it (Bending Toward Justice; Senate.gov). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Peresvet[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Peresvet was designed to defeat enemy armored cruisers defending convoys of merchant ships, but ended up fighting battleships when she was sent to Port Arthur before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She was badly damaged in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and was scuttled in harbor once the Imperial Japanese Army could bombard it effectively. She was salvaged by the Japanese and placed into service. She was then sold back to the Russians during World War I and was in the White Sea when the British decided to intervene in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Although her crew had earlier declared their allegiance to the Bolsheviks, they did nothing to stop the British landings. She was eventually scrapped in 1924, well after the British withdrew from the war. The article passed GAN several years ago, but it's been expanded and extensively rewritten using information from new sources. It just passed a MilHist A-class review and should be in pretty good shape although I expect reviewers will still find a few infelicities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Pather Panchali[edit]

Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the first feature film directed by Satyajit Ray. This film is the first from India to enjoy international critical success and features in several lists of great films. The article has undergone a productive peer review, and then copyedit by User:stfg. A recent FAC was closed due to lack of reviewers. I believe the article meets FA criteria. Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - It's nice to see how this article has evolved since its GA nomination, which was actually reviewed by me back then, almost six years ago. I'm so proud of the way articles related to Indian cinema have become so much better off late, in terms of writing and effort put into them. This is a great example - it is insightful, very well researched, and as comprehensive as it can get. Very well done Dwaipayan, way to go. ShahidTalk2me 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Very nice article. It would have been awesome if I had some time to work on it as desired earlier. Nevertheless, good job and all the best. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from Dharmadhyaksha
  • Excellent suggestion. I have added several authorlinks in the reference section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In the lead there is this line "A special screening was attended by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru." Does it give impression that Nehru was PM as well as CM? Or is it just me reading it that way?
  • Now after reading your comment, when I read the sentence, it seems as if Nehru may seem to be both CM of WB and PM of India!! I have removed Nehru's name. The designation is important, the name not so much.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If you did want to have Nehru's name in it, one way would be to turn it round: "A special screening was attended by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India." Another would be to name the CM of WB :) --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is that needed at all? It doesn't seem leadworthy at all; films are specially screened for heads of state all the time.—indopug (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, not needed. It was only a suggestion in case it was wanted. The name is present later in the article and that's fine. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Rest all seems good. Well written. Nice job Dwaipayanc and others. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Image check

  • File:Pather panchali poster in color 1.jpg - is low resolution and has appropriate non-free use rationale
  • File:Patherpanchali 1.png - is low resolution and has appropriate non-free use rationale, as the scene is referred to in the text
  • File:Dia5275 Ravi Shankar.jpg - appears to be an own work and OK
  • File:SatyajitRay.jpg - appears to be an own work and OK.

That's all. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. I read most sections - it's getting late here, so couldn't check everything carefully - and found it to be excellent. None of the usual problems I normally find in Indian movie articles at GA and FA, like a tendency to purple prose and trivia about the actors, appear here. There has obviously been some good copyediting at some point. A well-prepared article on an important subject in the arts. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff. I made a number of comments on the article talk page just before this was re-nominated. Once those are addressed, I will be able to support. BollyJeff | talk 18:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to fix the citation error in the notes? Note a. shows three links a, b, and c. A and b actually go somewhere, but c does not. An error message at the bottom of the section says "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page)."BollyJeff | talk 00:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaning support, this is a great article, the best line being 'the government recorded the loan as being for "roads improvement" '. :) I copyedited the article and have a few comments before I can give my full support:

  • There are only two jarring notes in the article: the Google Doodle and the Rotten Tomatoes rating. Both are highly trivial 21st-century accolades that intrude upon a classic work. The former didn't even feature on the main Google site, just the local one. The latter includes all manner of blogs in its assessment, and excludes the likes of Pauline Kael. Both should be relegated to the external links, if not removed altogether.
I would keep the doodle info even though trivial. It only shows how the "classic" is still part of 21st-century culture. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ideologically, I am somewhat with Indopug here. Google doodle and Rotten Tomatoes may seem intruding. However, we see Rotten Tomato info in many film articles. That is why it may be a good addition for some readers. For google doodle, I am neither in favor nor against it. Here, Indopug is against and Dhama for its inclusion. Any more voices?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm with you on that: weak keep for RT, weak remove for the doodle. Those doodles' main effects are to keep Google in people's minds and to reinforce celebrity culture. But I'm probably old-fashioned, and I wouldn't push the point at all. --Stfg (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The section it is under is "legacy". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I am for keeping it. Legacy section is okay for newer stuff. BollyJeff | talk 12:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to add an image of Ray's storyboards? Even if non-free, it will add value.
  • Is it "The Apu Trilogy" or just the "Apu trilogy"? I see both here. (I prefer the latter, it looks less pompous)
    • I added a question to the talk page before I saw this. The article The Apu Trilogy styles it with all caps and all italics, but I agree with your preference. --Stfg (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Roger Ebert calls it "The Apu Trilogy". I have not changed the usage to the "Apu Trilogy" yet (I don't mind changing it at all). Since both Indopug and Stfg prefer the "Apu Trilogy", I hope it is preferable. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I understood the two options to be about capitalising "the" and "trilogy" (as part of a title). That is, either The Apu Trilogy or the Apu trilogy. I don't think we'd want to omit the definite article except where some other determiner replaces it, as in Ray's Apu trilogy, for example. --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "While many critics celebrated Pather Panchali as a eulogy of Third World culture, others criticised it for what they took to be romanticisation of such a culture" → can you confirm that this is what is said in the source? I find it hard to believe that celebrating Third World culture should be criticised. (If there's an explanation at the source, please add it to the article.)
  • Actually, I found this sentence had too close paraphrasing with the source. So, I changed it to a quote, with author attribution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "After watching the film, François Truffaut is reported to have..." → didn't he exclaim that during the film, as he walked out?
  • the source uses "after". We are not sure. Your provided source (the Hindu article), I think, is a better source for this than the source used in the article. But is itvery important to differentiate during and after. Please advice. I am ok with either. May be we can avoid using either.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Robinson have anything to say about the Themes?
  • Both Rs. and that symbol are used.
  • Now the symbol is used consistently.
  • DVD info: is that technical info really encyclopedic? Also note that the film's probably been released in a variety of home media over the years (VCR, VCD...), so there's no need to specifically mention this one format. The restoration information is more important though and you should promote that from the footnote into the main article.—indopug (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, moved the restoration info to the last paragraph of Release and reception. I am not sure about the necessity of the technical details of the DVD. Surely, the film has had several video tape, VCD, DVD releases. Mentioning those two is probably not needed. I am inclined to delete this info, but have not yet.
  • Ton of thanks for reading the article in such detail, the copyedit, and the suggestions.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cite error correction[edit]

I feel that to correct this error, the explanatory notes should be edited like how they are in Sholay. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The first unit formed by the Royal Australian Air Force in 1921, No. 1 Flying Training School (FTS) went through some dizzying changes of name and role during its 70-year history. For 20 years it was, despite the numbering, the RAAF's only flying school, before becoming just one of many intermediate/advanced (or "service") training schools during World War II. Afterwards it was again the only FTS, until the pressures of the Cold War led to it splitting into three and becoming responsible for advanced (or "applied") training only. By the 1970s it was one of two RAAF flying schools and its role had changed again, this time to basic training. Rationalisation finally saw it disbanded in 1993. The article comes to you fresh from a successful MilHist A-Class Review, which I decided to undertake after finally unearthing all the rationales for the unit's twists and turns over the years -- not to mention a decent copy of its crest. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment by Curly Turkey[edit]

Deathrow (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): czar  21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a quick and neat little read: Deathrow, the 2002 ultraviolent futuristic rugby alternative sports game that combines hockey, basketball, and a gang fight. Reviewers commented on its edginess and compared it to a tradition of futuristic rugby alternative sports. And boy did they love the cursing. Almost everyone commented on the game's frequent f-bombs, which became perhaps its defining characteristic. The IGN reviewer called it "best use of endless cursing in a game... ever" and the EGM reviewer could tell the developers were European because of the "awkward, over-the-top expletives in obnoxious American accents" paired with rugby. The prose flows nicely and it says just enough about the core encyclopedic subtopics without going into excessive detail. Thanks for taking a look czar  21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Czar. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • This is one I've noticed going back months into the past, so now's the time to voice it: Why is "alternative sports" linked just to "sports game"? Why link it at all, since "alternative sports" doesn't seem to be a common classification?
  • "as an Xbox gaming system exclusive" - Nonstandard; try "as an exclusive for the Xbox game console".
  • "Development started in May 1999 as an online PC game" - Spurious grammar; the development wasn't an online PC game. I'd change it to "The game began development in May 1999 as an online PC title".
  • "Set in the year 2219,[1] Blitz is the world's most popular sport" - Also questionable; Blitz, the sport, can't be set in a year.
  • "The game won the TeamXbox 2002 Breakthrough Game of the Year award and the IGN 2002 Best Game Nobody Played." - TeamXbox and IGN should be linked, and those award titles should likely be in quotes.
  • "Xboxes" - I know what this means, but it's not standard, I think. Switch to "Xbox consoles" or the like.
  • Is "fun" really a notable feature of the reception to mention? This goes for both the lead and Reception.
  • "Some critics felt the game's use of profanity" - Probably worth a mention just how frequent and perceivedly awkward the profanity is; currently the sentence comes off like some critics thought the profanity was a genuine positive rather than a "so bad, it's good" quality. Or am I interpreting it wrong? (This too goes for both loci.)
  • I feel like the game's plot may not be covered in enough depth. My impression is that it's as fleeting and dismissive as even our coverage of main-series Pokémon plots.
  • Current ref 27 ("Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "Deathrow"") has some URL issue at play.
  • "for its additional power" - Compared to what? Maybe the PS2 and Dreamcast, but the Xbox wasn't any more powerful than the GameCube or, as is my impression, contemporary PCs.
  • "The characters are made of over 7000 polygons and 55 bones" - Each? If so, say so.
  • Merge the second and third paragraphs of Development together.
  • "ties go to the incumbent team" - Confusing; incumbent by what metric? Having won a majority of the rounds already played that match? If so, what if the two teams are tied by wins (1 or 0 wins each) before tying a round?
  • Second paragraph of Gameplay's rather long in general. I'd split it such that the nascent third paragraph begins with "There are 150 unique".
  • Are you sure those comparisons are necessary for Gameplay rather than Reception? I could go either way, but I'm uneasy.
  • "Racer also found the music generic, and the voice acting good" - Rephrase; this should be a contrast.
  • Can you briefly explain somewhere in the article on what System Link is?
  • "IGN described the controls as "relatively simple" and easy to understand within a single game" - This is not appropriate anywhere outside Reception.
  • "An overcharged shot will electrify the player" - Then what? Is the player stunned for a few seconds?
  • Is "Sequel" relevant to Reception? I'd prefer it stood on its own as a level-2 section.
  • "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Troy Oxford also connected the profanity to the game's "'M' rating"" - Unnecessary.

Not too far overall. I'll keep this watchlisted, obviously. Come over to Wisps' FAC if you have time. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved all. Some feedback: I kept "alternative sports" because it's what sources used the most (and is synonymous with the "extreme sports" genre, which is linked to sports game the same way). The "Xbox gaming system exclusive" is fine, grammatically. IGN/TeamXbox are linked in the preceding sentence and I'm not familiar with the rule that would put the award titles in quotes. (It's like winning Best Actor at the Oscars.) I don't think "Xboxes" is an issue since its parent does it too, but I changed it. I believe "fun" is supported, but don't have an opinion on it so I struck it for now. (No fun.) Re: profanity, there was a section on it starting with, "Goldstein regarded Deathrow's profanity as ...", unless you wanted more. I don't think there's any more to the plot worth elaborating. Racer line isn't a comparison but a listing of what Racer found, so should be okay. I believe "System Link[5] with up to eight players across up to eight Xbox consoles" covers what you want to know about that. IGN "simple controls" in the Controls section is absolutely fine by my eyes and I don't know why it'd be treated differently from, say, how IGN might explain that the easy mode is really easy. Especially if it's corroborated, it's most pertinent where it is. I kept Sequel level three because it's more about the interest surrounding a sequel than one planned. czar  22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the earlier links to IGN and TeamXbox. I'd still prefer quotes around the award names as they're not linked and are nowhere near as well known as ones like Best Actor, but I won't withhold support for that. My only real remaining concern is about the controls' simplicity; I really don't favor including a statement about the controls being simple, nor would I a statement about the easy mode being easy. At best it's unnecessary; at worst it's a value judgment. Tezero (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall any VG articles using quotes for awards. I know I just copyedited GTA V, which had a whole section of unquoted awards. I see value in including a description of the controls as "simple" in a section that describes the controls, but I'm cool with deferring to your adamancy on this one, since it's not worth pursuing further and I trust your judgment. czar  01:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. That's fine; if someone else decides, with a good reason, that it's better and adds it back, I won't rescind my support or anything. Not a huge deal; just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, but hey. Tezero (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wisp (Sonic)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most obscure subjects for an FAC you're likely to have seen lately: Wisps are aliens that function as power-ups in three Sonic the Hedgehog games – and, in the second, just as a throwback to the first. However, critics have given copious opinions on these critters, and they're only going to get more relevant with time (if Takashi Iizuka can be trusted), so I began building the article from nothing late this March. I've been creating and working solidly on Sonic character articles lately – it's nice that we actually have articles now on some characters whose introductions I'm old enough to remember.

The article passed its GAN while it was on the front page with a DYK, and I've realized that if it passes FAC, I'll be in the running for a Four Award. (Awards aren't a big deal to me, but this one'd be nice to have.) I've addressed comments made at PR and done a few more edits for readability, and I now feel that this fits the FA criteria. Moreover, Pokémon Channel has been promoted so I'm now eligible to nominate. With that out of the way, I'm gonna reach for the star tonight! Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I've not properly reviewed the article, but the table is walkthrough level minutiae, and WP:GAMEGUIDE level material. It is a table of in-game power ups, what they do, and in which games they can be found. I can't see how knowing the Violet Void power up which "scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels" and is exclusive to the DS game is of any value whatsoever. I'm not sure that Sonic collapses into a singularity, but I've never played the game. - hahnchen 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please try to be actionable. What should I do instead? Collapse? Reduce how much is stated for each Wisp type? Or merge it into the text entirely? (If so, how, given that numerous Wisps are referenced by name elsewhere?) Tezero (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
There might be an intermediate solution but realistically per GAMEGUIDE Hannchen is right. For the purposes of the non-video game playing reader, there are three things to take away: 1) Wisps provide various powerups to Sonic, such as X, Y, or Z (you can give examples), 2) They have unique designs and color-coded to help identify what does what, and 3) they - in subsets or in whole - have appears in this list of Sonic games. That all can be said in about a single paragraph. But as said, this is the worst case scenario. There may be a middle ground for this. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm against the chart as well. I think it would be better to convert to prose, and/or scale back the chart some. (For example, less emphasis on wisps that aren't available in the games - less of all of those red x's. Sergecross73 msg me 10:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Most of this article is cited to the games themselves (such as Sonic Colors). Games are primary sources and to interpret them directly without a reliable secondary source is original research.—indopug (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are used all the time, including in plenty of FAs. The "cite video game" template allows for simply citing levels, as it's sometimes used here, and I know the article Sonic Adventure does that (yes, it was demoted from GA, but not for that reason). Regardless, if consensus determines that the table has got to go, period, then this citation style will no longer exist in the article. Tezero (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The table is less worrying for me than the Design section, where the Wisps' personalities and other attributes are gleaned from dialogue from the game. It's like writing the character section of the Juliet article based on your interpretations of the original Romeo and Juliet text!—indopug (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The personalities are taken from the manual, which directly states them. I agree that original synthesis of primary-sourced information is OR and not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that's not what this is. Tezero (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The manual is also a primary source. To make myself clear, I wouldn't mind if you quoted just a dialogue or two directly from the game. The issue here is that over two-thirds of the article is based on primary sources such as the games, their manuals, comic books and fans "who don't consider themselves video game journalists". Below you cited Cortana as a precedent for doing so, but that article passed FAC nearly seven years ago. Enforcement of our sourcing and synthesis rules has become significantly stricter since then.—indopug (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The over-two-thirds bit is misleading; only the first paragraph of Creation and characteristics and part of the second, one sentence in Types, and most of Appearances are cited to primary sources. It's that over two-thirds of the sources used are primary, which is because you can generally get more out of an article by IGN or GameSpot than out of one quote from the game. As for SegaNerds, that's an interview; sources for interviews have significantly lower standards for reliability as they consist of the actual words of a related individual rather than paraphrasing. (Can someone in WP:VG back me up on this? I'm sure we have a policy written on it somewhere; I know I heard it in the GAN for Don't Starve.) As for Cortana being old, Arbiter (2009), Flood (2008), and MissingNo. (2009)—the most recent game character articles promoted to FA status—all use game quotes. And there are numerous FAs for comics characters that cite entire issues (e.g. Batman, Anarky). The thing with primary sources is that, while they're not ideal, they're useful for filling in information that's essential to an understanding of a character but that a secondary source isn't likely to think is worth mentioning. (And this isn't necessarily because they think it's insignificant; they may think it's too obvious or it may just not relate to their points.) Tezero (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I still disgree that we need to cite every single sentence in the first paragraph of the Creation section.
Types section - "while Violet Void, which scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels and causes him to absorb enemies, obstacles, and rings" - that could be described without needing to use the manual's description.
I don't get it; it doesn't use the manual's description. There's a secondary source attached. Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Appearances section - I would treat this as I would a plot section in a video game article. If it is not going to be contentious information, then I do not see the need to cite the source. WP:V clearly states "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A lot of information is unlikely to be challenged and to my knowledge has not been challenged yet. Should there be any challenges, you already have a source (albeit a primary source).
This isn't the case in the video game character FAs I've mentioned here, nor is it much of a standard in game character GAs. I prefer to cite plots so that readers can look at where we get the information and view the events in the context of the game, rather than just take our word as law. However, this has been brought up at my FACs and GANs before (although never to an extent such that the citations ended up gone), and I'd like to actually form more of a project consensus on this. I'm taking this to WT:VG now. (No attack on you, of course; I genuinely want to know what the community thinks.) Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
e: An addedndum, really. I've looked at other FA to see how they have done their citations. A close article (in terms of them being minor characters with a featured article is Nikki and Paulo. Just something to bear in mind as Cortana is arguably a major character in the Halo series - especially now Microsoft plan to name their assistant Cortana too. While the Nikki and Paulo article was promoted in 2007, I see no reason as to why it shouldn't remain a featured article. If the rules regarding WP:V are being more heavily scrutinised, I'd quite like to read the discussion where this took place. Calvin (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is just a suggestion, but I feel the "Reception" section might be more informative if it was cleanly divided by game. Colors and to a slightly lesser extent the 3DS version of Lost World were clearly designed around the Wisps, while the Wii U version of Lost World incorporates the Wisps as almost completely optional and sparsely used minigames, as Iizuka has directly stated. These design choices have influenced their mixed reception; for example, Chris Plante of Polygon opined that the Wisps "worked great" in Colors but "generally meant frustration or death" in Lost World Wii U. In general, the Wisps were well-received in Colors and poorly received in Lost World, although of course both games garnered varying degrees of praise and criticism. Finally, the Kotaku review only "praised" the 3DS version of Lost World, and it doesn't offer any positive or negative commentary on the Wisps in particular.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll see how that looks when I'm done merging Wisp information into the text. I realize that this FAC is probably going to fail even if every complaint here is addressed, just because of the atmosphere around, but I'd like to get everyone's concerns taken care of anyway. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: To all concerned about the chart: It has been massively eaten away and now only consists of a list of all of the Wisps by name; I've converted information about a few of the types to prose, ditched the rest, and moved a bit in from Appearances for consistency. How do you feel now? (There's also a strange quirk with the text leaning into the table's personal bubble, but I don't know how to fix that.) @Hahnchen: @Sergecross73: @Masem: @TheTimesAreAChanging: Tezero (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a fair middle ground.You might want to add a {{-}} (an HTML clear) before the section with the picture; this might add white space but it will clear the table from the picture. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From Singora RE: "There's also a strange quirk with the text leaning into the table's personal bubble, but I don't know how to fix that." I've fixed the CSS for you. The table needed a left margin to create space between it and the text. I've used 25px, but you could reduce this to 20px if you want. Singora (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured it was the margins, but I couldn't look up any documentation as it's not a template. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From CalvinK - Just some points to consider based on above comments.

  • The appearances section doesn't need references, if it is obvious from the game. It might be worthwhile seeing how Grand Theft Auto V has had its plot section written, as I feel this would apply to the "Appearances" section. It may also give you a bit of an insight as to how to write it as I'm a little unsure whether the correct tense is used through that section. Only use references where you have used sources outside of the game to analyse the meaning of text in the game. Calvin (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is more in line with the recommendations for articles on actual games, although those too are allowed to cite quotes if they adhere fairly closely to exactly what the quotes say without original analysis. If you look at FAs for game characters (admittedly there are only a few) like Cortana, you'll notice a number of quote citations for plot information. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair point, I'd not come across that before. Calvin (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll look into the tense issue. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I actually don't see any inconsistencies in the tenses. How it's laid out now is that the present tense is used for what occurs during the game; the past tense is used for events that took place before the story, as well as real-life information concerning releases of various media. That said, perhaps I'm overlooking something. Tezero (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr. Blofeld (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been one of the toughest articles I've ever worked on. As a kid I loved Enid Blyton's books, and I remember in my second year at primary school, when I came top of the class, being allowed to choose my prize, which was a Noddy book. Blyton died in 1968, yet she's still one of the world's most popular authors, but her story isn't an easy one to tell. I hope you'll find that Dr. Blofeld and I have made a decent fist of trying to encapsulate one of the most prolific authors ever into the space of a Wikipedia article. Eric Corbett 19:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments (delegate, don't take this as either support or oppose at this stage)
  • I'm fairly certain the dog in the Famous Five was just Timmy, not short for Timothy as currently stated.
    I believe you're right, now changed. Eric Corbett 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't Georgina refer to him as Timothy when he'd done something wrong? I see even Famous Five books refer to it as Timothy the Dog looking in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is this illustrated with a picture of Thatcher Rock in Devon, which has no connection to Blyton other than the fact that the uploader of the photo has said it "looks like Kirrin Island"? Kirrin Island is set in Dorset in the books but based on Elizabeth Castle Island in the Channel Islands ("It was an island I once visited several times when I was in Jersey, it lay off the coast and could only be reached either by boat or by a rocky path exposed when the tide was out. It had an old castle there and I longed to put the island and castle into a book. So I did, as you know!"), while Whispering Island is a very thinly disguised Brownsea Island, off the coast of Poole.)
I suspected that photo might bring some comments. I thought it looked like something out of a Blyton novel (which the photographer obviously also did too, calling it Kirrin Island) and was a good way to place emphasis on that sort of location in her novels which is discussed in the text. You could argue though that it is POV in imagining what a Blyton location might look like so I agree it should probably be removed. If we weren't so restrictive as a source over copyright obviously we'd have the cover of the Kirrin Island Famous Five book instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "They continue to be very popular among children in the Commonwealth nations too such as Malta, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Australia but also in Japan and the former Yugoslavia and around the world" is a very awkward sentence—if she's popular around the world why single out Japan and Yugoslavia, and why list the Commonwealth countries?
Because Japan and Yugoslavia aren't commonwealth nations and I thought it was worth mentioning the commonwealth nations which her works are popular in. I'll split the sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Mordaciously"? I understand (while disagreeing with) the thinking behind using obscure words to avoid repetition and using unfamiliar terminology to encourage the reader to learn new words, but doing so on an article likely to be read overwhelmingly by children and people for whom English isn't a first language, especially when there are numerous widely-understood synonyms ("caustically", "sarcastically"…) just comes across as pretentious at best and obnoxious at worst.
    I've never been happy with "mordaciously", so I'll let Dr. Blofeld respond to that. Eric Corbett 14:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I thought it was a perfect word to describe the critic. Oxford dictionary defines it and it seems to be an accurate description. Does expanding one's vocabulary make one pretentious? Should we write the whole article in simple English then because the readership might be young children? "Scathing" I suppose you could use instead but there is something onomatopoeic which I liked which implies "biting" or "stinging". I hadn't realized it would be considered problematic to use a word in the Oxford dictionary. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I suspect that "mordaciously" is probably one level too far in obscurity to be the best choice for an article that will likely have a younger than average readership as well as one where English is often not the reader's first language. We are urged in MOS:JARGON to "not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do" and that's probably just as true here. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • HarperCollins is an American company founded in 1989 by Rupert Murdoch as a single corporate identity for the various publishing houses News Corporation had acquired over the years—they couldn't possibly have been Blyton's publisher in 1961. Their predecessor Harper & Brothers did exist, but was an American magazine publisher and very unlikely to have been publishing children's books in the UK. Was it actually William Collins, Sons of Glasgow?
    You're right, it was William Collins. Now fixed. Eric Corbett 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted yup. I believe the source is referring to the company as it is called now, they merged in 1990.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that "in an age marked by the invasion of American culture, Blyton's works continued to be considered by many as a "savoury" alternative to the likes of Disney and comics, which Blyton was able to exploit as criticism mounted" does reflect what's said in the source, but verifiability not truth is no longer with us and this is a highly dubious claim, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone slaps an {{who}} tag after "by many". The great surges in the influence of American culture came between the birth of motion pictures and the end of World War II and following the introduction of satellite and cable TV from the late 1980s, and there was no particularly strong US influence on British culture in the 1950s and early 1960s (the period under discussion)—if anything, this was the golden age of uniquely British culture, from skiffle to Carry On Sergeant to Ealing comedy to Listen With Mother. The idea of popular culture being an either/or choice between Noddy and the Famous Five or Jerry Lee Lewis and Tales from the Crypt (which is essentially the claim being made in the source) is such an extraordinary claim, it needs an extraordinarily good source.
 – iridescent 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, and I think the source is a reliable one. I remember myself being fascinated by Superman comics in the late '50s for instance. Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Britain did have a strong cultural identity in the 50s and 60s true, but it's hard to think that people like Elvis didn't have an influence on people like Cliff Richard and the Beatles and British music etc. I watch a lot of films from that period, British and American and I often detect a strong American influence in British films with hairstyles, music and youth culture. The source I believe discusses the invasion of Mickey Mouse and others. We should probably avoid narrow statements though I agree but as Eric says, the source seems credible..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Only anecdotal, but my recollection agrees with Eric here - the 1950s for me were the heyday of Superman and Batman in DC comics; Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels as the Lone Ranger and Tonto; and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr in 77 Sunset Strip. They had a much more profound cultural impact on my youth than The Famous Five ever did to a working-class kid in Tipton. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll try and work through them as time permits. Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments from Stfg (now supporting; see below)
  • Last sentence of 1st para: dangling modifier. Child Whispers isn't best remembered for the Noddy character etc, of course.
    Of course it isn't, and that sentence doesn't say that it is. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's dangling, whatever you think it says. --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    No, it's not. Eric Corbett 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    My view of such "rules" is that their purpose is to remove ambiguity, much like the "rules" of hyphenation. But after some reflection, even though I don't agree with the point being made, as I don't see the ambiguity, I've rewritten the sentences around that area to resolve an issue that I don't think is worth going to war over. Hopefully we can put this to bed now. Eric Corbett 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks. I agree there was no ambiguity of meaning, and I was more pushing a "rule" (one which someone else once pushed at me at FAC, by the way). I think your new version reads better anyway. Thanks for doing that and explaining your take on it, which I now understand. --Stfg (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Actually I agree with you, I think the new version does read better, so all's well that ends well. Eric Corbett 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Early life and education, last sentence of 1st para: is "ultimately" doing any work here?
    Possibly not, removed it anyway. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Early writing career, 1st sentence: minor, I know, but why the comma?
    Why not? Seems fine to me. She didn't move to "Chessington and somewhere else", she moved to Chessington. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    "began writing in her spare time" isn't somewhere else, and it isn't an independent clause either. --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, I think the sentence is fine as it is. Eric Corbett 20:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Early writing career, 3rd para: They were followed by The Enid Blyton Book of Fairies, Songs of Gladness and Sports and Games in 1924, and the Book of Brownies in 1926. Someone hearing this read aloud might wonder if "in 1924" and/or "in 1926" are parts of the immediately preceding titles. Maybe instead "... followed in 1924 by ..." and "... and in 1926 by the Book of Brownies." ? Also, some listings give "Book of Brownies" as the complete title; others give it as "The Book of Brownies". I think you should either include the definite article in the title or omit it entirely.
  • New series: 1937–48 section:
  • Blyton's first full-length adventure novel, The Secret Island, featuring the characters of Jack, Mike, Peggy, Nora, and Prince Paul of Baronia was published in 1938. Punctuation a mess: commas not needed after novel and Nora. Comma required after Baronia. In the next sentence, why the comma after Gillian's? Same sentence: "the The Secret series". Next sentence: "the The Circus series". Next sentence: "In 1939, Blyton ..." inconsistent with your punctuation style elsewhere.
    Fixed. Eric Corbett 18:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Still in the same paragraph: is there an Amelia Jane series, as opposed to just Amelia Jane stories. If there is, italicise consistently with the other series, and perhaps it should be added to template {{Enid Blyton}}, which doesn't have it yet. The source for this sentence (currently FN16) doesn't need the paywalled link, as it's available in full here. It doesn't support the statement that Blyton published Naughty Amelia Jane! in 1939, though.
  • Following paragraph: Here you have "the St. Clare's series", whereas in the previous paragraph you italicised "series" as well. In para 4, you have "the Mary Mouse series" with no italics at all. Likewise "the Famous Five series" later on. There are more later still, which I'll not enumerate.
    I don't believe that any of the series names should be italicised, and they should be consistent now. Eric Corbett 17:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 4th paragraph: "provided" is redundant in the first sentence. Enid Blyton's Book of the Year a collection of 129 stories, poems, plays and puzzles published during the 1930s in Teacher's World, with illustrations by Harry Rountree, was also published, with a common nature theme. needs a comma after year. That it was published is a tautology; the point is that this time it came in book form. The word order leaves it unclear where Rountree's illustrations were used: in Teacher's World, in the book or both. The final phrase is misplaced: it is the 129 stories, poems, plays and puzzles that have a common nature theme, not the act of publication.
  • "... a mouse exiled from her mousehole who becomes a maid at a dolls' house". Dangling.
    There's nothing wrong with that sentence, as the preposition "who" can clearly only be referring to the mouse, not to the inanimate mousehole. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Preposition? Anyway, Fair enough.--Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, I meant pronoun. Maybe one day I'll be as clever and well educated as you are. Eric Corbett 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Blyton had an interest in biblical narratives, and produced retellings of Old and New Testament stories." -- why the comma?
    The comma is necessary because without it the sentence would be saying that she had two interests: biblical narratives and producing retellings. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    The sentence has "produced", not "producing". How can her two interests be "biblical narratives and produced retellings"? What is a produced retelling, anyway? --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's a fair point; changed it to "retold". Eric Corbett 22:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A number of Blyton's works during this period had seaside themes, among them John Jolly by the Sea (1943) – a picture book intended for younger readers published in a booklet format by Evans Brothers,[29] the books The Secret of Cliff Castle and Smuggler Ben attributed to Mary Pollock in 1943, The Island of Adventure, the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards, and The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House (1945), aside from various novels of The Famous Five series which dealt with the sea and exploration such as Five on a Treasure Island (1942), Five on Kirrin Island Again (1947) and Five Go Down to the Sea (1953). The picture book parenthesis is inconsistently punctuated. The "the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards" is presented as if it were one of the list elements. "the The". Full stop after Family should be a comma. Sea theme stated twice.
    Fixed now I think. Eric Corbett 19:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1945 she published A Book of Magic, The Caravan Family, with illustrations by William Fyffe, and continued to produce picture books ... Where does the list start and end? Shouldn't there be an "and" after Magic?
    Fixed. Eric Corbett 18:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave off here. It doesn't seem quite ready. The prose as far as I've seen it seems to me to be below FA standard at present, and imo it needs copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Redacted --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we should withdraw the nomination then? Or are you saying that the bar at FAC has risen so high that only perfect articles should be submitted? Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those. I'm making constructive comments suggesting where the prose could be improved, and saying that the quality of prose I'm seeing here isn't yet professional, much less "brilliant". --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, the prose doesn't have to be brilliant at FAC, that's the whole point. This article has received a peer review AND a GAR, so surely the natural progression would be FAC, no? I admit, the article isn't perfect and neither of the editors assume it so. I think you are being a little harsh at such an early stage. Cassiantotalk 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Continued on talk page.

  • Support (further comments from Stfg)
I've just re-read the whole article, and unlike four days ago, I find the article very well written and engaging. I only found the following:
  • There are still one of two cases of "the The" when the capitalised "The" is part of a series name.
    We've hopefully got them all now. Eric Corbett 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    I found a few more. All gone now, I think. --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Simplicity section, "she seemed untroubled by presenting a different world to reality to them" seems a bit awkward. Would something like "she seemed untroubled by presenting them with a world different from reality" be better?
    It would indeed, but I've slightly amended your suggestion to "she seemed untroubled by presenting them with a world that differed from reality".
    Even better. --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
--Stfg (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from Paul Austin
  • There are a number of factual errors in the text. One part of the article, for example, refers to "Imogen's death". Imogen is still alive, it's Gillian who is dead. If something as important as this is wrong, what else is?
  • As i mentioned on the talk page, There is no mention of the modernisation of duodecimal money, the changing of foods and drinks to more modern items (the kids in some of the books now drink things like Coca Cola instead of tea), the altering of names that are now offensive (Nigger and Darky in the circus books, unfortunate (Fanny and Dick in the Faraway Tree), or seen as old-fashioned (Mary and Jill in the Adventurous Four). Paul Austin (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    That's rather unfair to imply the article is full of grave errors purely because the name of the other daughter was there. That sort of thing is very easy to introduce and not always easy to spot. Kudos for spotting it though. Please do mention any of the other factual errors you claim to see. Yes, we could further mention some of the changes, good point. I don't think we need to document every change ever made though. Can you suggest some good sources which document those which you mentioned? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    You claim that there are a "number" of factual errors Paul, yet you quote only one, now corrected. Let's remember that zero is also a number. Eric Corbett 20:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    There is also such a thing as "error by omission". I still think that more of the "blue pencil" changes to Blyton's works should be added. Paul Austin (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    We could certainly expand on that, but how many would be enough for you? And by no definition is it a "factual error" to omit your favourite revisions. Eric Corbett 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said, can you provide sources to reveal these "errors in omission"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I have watched the articles progress over the last month or so and I am impressed with what I see now. I don't think the article should be withdrawn as suggested above and with a peer review and GAC under its belt, FAC is the natural progression. I will offer some comments, but at a drip-fed pace owing to real life. Lead will come last.

Early life and education

  • Enid Blyton was born on 11 August 1897 in East Dulwich, London, England, the eldest of three children, to Thomas Carey Blyton (1870–1920), a cutlery salesman, and his wife Theresa Mary Harrison Blyton (1874–1950). -- Rather long. Could this be broken in half?
  • Her younger brothers... -- Whose, Enid or Theresa?
    Enid's, now clarified. Eric Corbett 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For our non geographically minded, and foreign readers, could Beckenham be mentioned next to a more recognisable location (i.e Bromley or Kent etc..)
Added "then in Kent".♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ...but was nursed back to health by her father, whom she adored. -- Can we not take the fact she adored her father as a given? Or did their relationship exceed all expectations compared to other daughter/father relationships?
    • A lot of sources indicate that her childhood relationship with her father had a profound impact on her life and career. A lot of people seem to think that she remained the girl who longed for her father as a child all of her life and that a lot of her books reflected a deep desire to return to that period in which she was happy and were in a way therapeutic for her. I think it's pretty important to state it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We say Enid was devastated by Thomas' infidelity and naturally so. But why didn't she attend her "adored" father's funeral? If the affair aggravated their relationship, I think we should say as it answers this question which I inevitably found myself asking at the end of the sentence. I think it is possible to see your parents have an affair, but still adore them afterwards.
    Her brother Hanly has speculated that Blyton didn't attend her father's funeral because she didn't want to have to meet her father's new partner, but she never gave an explanation herself. I might add a note to that effect. Eric Corbett 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • From 1907 to 1915 Enid attended St Christopher's School... -- Why do we refer to her as "Enid"? We then go onto call her Blyton. I prefer the surname, but I think we should at least be consistent.
    I think that was a carry-over from the preceding paragraph, where she's identified as Enid to avoid confusion with the other Blyton family members, but we can can certainly switch to "Blyton" here, which I've done. Eric Corbett 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Enid's mother disapproved of her writing... This could read that her mother disapproved of her own writing. Might I suggest: "Blyton's mother disapproved of her daughters writing..." or similar. We could even get away with a pronoun instead of "Blyton" at the start I reckon.
    Slightly rewritten to address this issue. Eric Corbett 20:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Blyton moved out of the family home to live with her friend Mary Attenborough. She then left Beckenham ... -- Blyton or Attenborough?
Done.
  • She then left Beckenham and stayed with George and Emily Hart at Seckford Hall in Woodbridge in Suffolk... in →in, also a link to Suffolk would possibly be helpful.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • a house whose haunted room... POV. I would insert "allegedly" or "reputed" before haunted. Also, do we use "whose" for an inanimate object? I would have thought this applied to persons only? I note WP:ALLEGED, but feel something should be put in here to avoid the POV. Alternatively, we could blame Blyton and say that she thought it was haunted.
    I've added the word reputedly. As for whose, I think we do use sometimes use that inanimate objects. Eric Corbett 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "kindergarten" an American term? Would we not say pre-school or something?
    • Yes, it seems like it, but the source and others I believe all say kindergarten. Should we really state something other than what the source says to avoid sounding American? I'm not sure. Eric?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Were the authors American? I could be wrong, but "kindergarten" strikes me as either being German or American. When I hear it I think of KinderGarten Cop lol, which makes me think of America. Cassiantotalk 19:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL. I believe that the British Enid Blyton Society refers to it as kindergarten too! Changed to nursery school though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would it not be better to mention her publishing rebuffs before her success? I'm thinking here: In March that year her first poems were published in Nash's Magazine. Blyton had been rejected by publishers on many occasions...
    Good idea. I've moved a few bits around. Eric Corbett 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would the definite article of "nursery governess" be better? Or was she one of many?
  • Same with "architect Horace Thompson"?
Both have been addressed.

Early writing career

  • On the Popular Fallacy that to the Pure All Things are Pure. -- What was this? A poem, short story, novel?
    Actually looks like an essay [1] Appendix 2 of the biography. Eric you might respond to that one and confirm what it is. Can you replace the chrono source with Appendix 2 of the Stoney biography also? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It was indeed an essay, and I've replaced the citation with one from Stoney's biography. Eric Corbett 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph is missing a closing citation.
    Seems to have been added now? Eric Corbett 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we know the year of publication of Pictorial Knowledge. Compared to the others, this is the only one lacking.
Well spotted! 1930.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The second from last paragraph is missing a closing citation, as does the final one.

New series: 1937–48

  • Like her The Wishing-Chair series...
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Missing citation end of first para.
    Did add sources, but as Eric said in the removal, plot-like information doesn't need to be sourced, and I think he's right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Secret Island, described as a "Robinson Crusoe-style adventure on an island in an English lake" -- Described by who?
    The Herald, added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • According to Gillian, the main character was based on a large handmade doll given to her on her third birthday by her mother. -- Who, Gillian or Blyton?
    By Enid. Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • During the 1940s Blyton not only proved how prolific she could be as an author, but demonstrated a "marketing, publicity and branding that was far ahead of its time", contributing to her major success during that period. -- The quote written here feels awkward when read with the rest of the sentence. I think the problem here is with the letter "a" just before it. Should it be there?
    @Cassianto: Would you be happier with "During the 1940s Blyton became a prolific author, and her major success during this period was accelerated by "marketing, publicity and branding that was far ahead of its time". ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that reads a lot better. Cassiantotalk 12:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The explanation of the pseudonym "Mary Pollock" could be moved to a note. It interrupts the flow, and tells us of a marriage which hasn't been mentioned yet.
    I disagree, I think it's important.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So popular were they... -- The eleven novels or the two Pollock ones?
  • Many wrote letters of complaint →"Many readers complained"?
Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The same year she published The Naughtiest Girl in the School about the exploits of a mischievous schoolgirl, Elizabeth Allen – "The same year she published The Naughtiest Girl in the School which followed the exploits of the mischievous schoolgirl, Elizabeth Allen."?
Reworded as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Twins at St. Clare's, about twins Patricia and Isabel O'Sullivan. – Could we avoid the repetition of "twins"?
changed to twin sisters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, about a half-brownie and half-human character who had the ability to make himself invisible
Yes, but I think it should be "has" rather than "had" when referring to a book or film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, about a half-brownie and half-human character with the ability to make himself invisible, with illustrations provided by Dorothy M. Wheeler,[22] who also worked on Five O'Clock Tales, released in the same year. -- I feel that this could be broken up. "In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, which featured a half-brownie and half-human character who had the ability to make himself invisible. The book featured illustrations by Dorothy M. Wheeler, who also worked on Five O'Clock Tales, released in the same year."
Agreed, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Its popularity →"The series' popularity"?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This para is lacking a closing citation.
  • A number of Blyton's works during this period had seaside themes, among them John Jolly by the Sea (1943) – a picture book intended for younger readers published in a booklet format by Evans Brothers,[28] the books The Secret of Cliff Castle and Smuggler Ben attributed to Mary Pollock in 1943, The Island of Adventure, the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards, and The Brown Family. – Again, this seems an overly long sentence for comfortable reading.
  • The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House (1945), as well as various novels of The Famous Five series dealing with the sea and exploration, such as Five on a Treasure Island (1942), Five on Kirrin Island Again (1947) and Five Go Down to the Sea (1953). – just doesn't make sense. This needs rewriting or t may be a case of sorting the punctuation. Is the lurking full stop between "family" and "London", there intentionally?
The book is called The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House. Yes it's correct, but on second thoughts I don't think it's notable enough to mention to I'll remove it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Lack of closing citation.
  • Capitalising on her success, with a loyal and ever-growing readership, Blyton managed to produce a new edition of many of her series -- are missing an apostrophe on "series"?
    Why do you think there ought to be an apostrophe on "series"? Eric Corbett 12:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Are we not talking of more than one series? "Many" indicates that we are. Or is "many" meaning each individual book within a series? If the former, are we are missing the plural form of series? (not sure which is correct: series' or series's). Cassiantotalk 12:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sounds like a variation on the grocer's apostrophe to me. Eric Corbett 13:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    We had this problem on Peter Sellers if you remember Doc. I now know, cheers. Cassiantotalk 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It is. Here is the OED entry for series. It states: "Plural unchanged, (rare) serieses". --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • By 1948 Blyton had reached her seventh The Famous Five novel – "By 1948 Blyton had written her seventh novel in the The Famous Five series"? Also, could we get away with a pronoun here?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Peak output: 1949–59

  • "The series centred around..." "centred around" – some people (probably the same people who cringe at the sight of a split infinitive) insist that "centred around" is a logical impossibility, and that the phrase must be "centred on".
Changed. Tim's influence rubbing off on you there!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Cheekily lifted from elsewhere, but for the benefit of both articles I think! I'll be wearing a bow tie next!!! -- Cassiantotalk 10:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "French author Evelyne Lallemand..." -- Definite article?
  • "Dutch illustrator Harmsen van der Beek." -- and again here?
Both addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Missing citation at the end of the second paragraph.
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "She completed the sixth and final book of the Malory Towers series, Last Term at Malory Towers, in 1951, and by 1955 Blyton had reached her fourteenth Famous Five novel, Five Have Plenty of Fun, her fifteenth Mary Mouse book, Mary Mouse in Nursery Rhyme Land, her eighth book in the Adventure series, The River of Adventure, and her seventh Secret Seven novel, Secret Seven Win Through." -- Phew! Perhaps a bit too long and could do with cutting in half. Also missing a closing citation.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Magazine and newspaper contributions

  • "That same year she was given her own column in Teachers World, entitled "From my Window". Three years later she was given..." -- She was given →She was given. Repetitive?
Well spotted! Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "They proved to be so popular that in 1933 they were published in book form as Letters from Bobs, selling ten thousand copies in the first week alone, but her most popular feature was "Round the Year with Enid Blyton", forty-eight articles covering aspects of natural history such as weather, pond life, how to plant a school garden and how to make a bird table." -- A bit too long. Might I suggest: "They proved to be so popular that in 1933 they were published in book form as Letters from Bobs, and sold ten thousand copies in the first week. Her most popular feature was "Round the Year with Enid Blyton", which consisted of forty-eight articles covering aspects of natural history such as weather, pond life, how to plant a school garden and how to make a bird table."
Better, agreed. Reworded. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Writing style and technique

  • Could "blurred the boundaries" be attributed?
I'd rather not as the book was written by three authors and it would affect the flow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes of course, sorry I hadn't realised. Cassiantotalk 10:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Blyton was very unwilling..." -- This would work just as well (if not better) without the adverb IMO.
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Enid Blyton Magazine Club itself was formed in 1953." – This would work better with "itself" omitted.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "She agreed, on condition that it also had some useful purpose, and suggested..." – She agreed, on condition that it serve a useful purpose, and suggested..."?
  • "The club was duly set up in 1952..."
  • "had raised £35,000 in the six years of the Enid Blyton Magazine's life." I would delete "had" and swap "life" with run.
  • "By 1974 the Famous Five Club had a membership of 220,000, and was reportedly growing..." – is "reportedly" in this context a little bit weasily?
All addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Jigsaw puzzles and games

  • "The Secret Seven, and the following year a Secret Seven card game..." -- Is there a reason why we italicise The Secret Seven and not Secret Seven? I wouldn't italicise either of them unless the jigsaw was a picture of the book. We later on in this paragraph refer to it as "Secret Seven jigsaw puzzle" without the Itals.
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

  • What a beautiful cottage! No comment, just an observation which added a few minutes onto this review with me gawping at its magnificence.
  • I take it both children were from the relationship with Pollock?
  • "In 1941 she met Kenneth Fraser Darrell Waters, a London surgeon with whom she began a relationship." -- Did they start the relationship in 1941? If so, and in the interests of copy editing, would it perhaps read better as "In 1941 she formed a relationship with the London surgeon Kenneth Fraser Darrell Waters." If they didn't meet in that year, then feel free to disregard this comment.
They met in 1941 I believe as it says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The state of her marriage worsened after Pollock rejoined The Royal Scots Fusiliers and narrowly escaped death in an air raid, after which the couple argued until Pollock demanded a divorce." -- Did they argue after he joined up, or as a result of the air raid?
  • How well known was the lesbian affair? Was there any truth to it?
    The only evidence for the claim is that Hugh Pollock discovered Blyton and her nursery governess locked together in the bathroom, and refused to come out when he challenged them. So who can tell how much credence it can be given, but certainly Pollock's second wife Ida (née Crowe) repeated the allegation in her own autobiography. Eric Corbett 00:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "During the divorce proceedings Blyton blackmailed Pollock into taking blame for the failure of the marriage..." -- taking "the" blame perhaps?

I hereby take umbrage at the pair of you for shattering my idyllic illusions of this author with revelations of heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity, divorce, blackmail, alcoholism and bankruptcy! Good grief, I had no idea!

Death and legacy

  • We don't need to be reminded so soon that she was suffering from Alzheimer's.
  • "From 2000 to 2010, she was listed..." -- back to the noun here to avoid confusion with the other prolific female writer in the previous sentence.
  • We use a comma for "In 2003," but elsewhere when starting a sentence with a year, we don't. Which is correct?
Addressed all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Critical backlash

  • "...are very much of their time," -- POV creeping in there.
    I don't think the sources are strong enough to support that statement, so I've removed the sentence. Eric Corbett 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support – Great work all round and very interesting! -- Cassiantotalk 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cass for the positive words, comments and time you've put in here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe all points have been addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by J Milburn

  • "Some libraries and schools banned her works, which the BBC had refused to broadcast since the 1930s because of their perceived lack of literary merit." The tense here leaves me wondering when precisely the BBC refused to broadcast. Do they still refuse?
    Note f explains that Blyton submitted her first proposal to the BBC in 1936, but I've clarified in the lead that the BBC's ban was lifted in the 1950s. Eric Corbett 20:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Are Saturday Westminster Review or Home Weekly worth redlinks? What is On the Popular Fallacy that to the Pure All Things are Pure? If an essay or poem (or even short story) it should probably be in speech marks rater than italics- either way, it would be good to clarify.
    I think I went through and created a few missing articles and concluded that it wasn't worth linking them before I couldn't find anything substantial about them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    We've now clarified that "On the Popular Fallacy ..." was an essay, and changed the formatting accordingly. Eric Corbett 12:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:ChildWhispersEnidBlyton.jpg- A tedious point, but this probably isn't PD in the UK- if it was first published here, it'll need to be uploaded locally and deleted from Commons. While PD in the US, which is all that's needed for enwp, Commons needs it to be PD in the source country too.
  • This has been dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There's nothing particularly controversial that I can see, but I am struck by some paragraphs ending without citations (though they have citations within them).
  • "and Heyo, Brer Rabbit![18] In 1939 Blyton published her initial book in the Amelia Jane series, Naughty Amelia Jane!." Inconsistency- if the title ends in an exclamation point, do you follow with a full stop or not?
    On reflection I think there ought not to be a full stop at the end of that sentence, so I've removed it. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "was also the first in her boarding school story genre of books" Is it her genre? How about "also the first of her..."
    Good idea, done. Eric Corbett 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Night The Toys Had A Party"- Per MOS, should probably be "The Night the Toys Had a Party"
    You're almost certainly right, so I've changed it. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the Malory Towers series" Why have you italicised this series name in particular?
    It's just one I missed when I was going through earlier, fixed now. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Sampson, Low, Marston and Company worth a redlink?
  • What's a "strip book"?
Blyton published quite a lot of books which featured comic strips mixed with things like short stories, poetry and other features. I thought strip book was an apt description of such books rather than referring to them as purely comic strips.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a term I've ever heard before- I wasn't really sure what was being referred to. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not finished yet, but I have to dash. I'll take another look soon. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

More comments:

  • "Blyton was very unwilling to conduct any research or planning before beginning work on a new book, which coupled with the lack of variety in her life[c] according to Druce almost inevitably presented the danger that she might unconsciously, and clearly did, plagiarise the books she had read, including her own.[61]" I found this sentence a little difficult to follow. What are you attributing to Druce?
    All of it I think. I'll dig it out and double check. Eric Corbett 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I suspect that there have been more recent jigsaw puzzles and games. At the very least, there are some video games. Could you perhaps expand on why you've included these particular spinoffs?
  • "In 1938 Blyton and her family moved to a house in Beaconsfield, which named Green Hedges by Blyton's readers following a competition in her magazine." Missed word?
    Indeed, now fixed. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Enid Blyton award, The Enid, was given" I don't think award names need to be italicised
    Neither do I, so the italics have been removed. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • " They continue to be very popular among " "They" meaning "Blyton's books", presumably?
    Yep, slightly rewritten to clarify. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "and that the world in which she was living in with her books was "too important to her to embrace those who intruded on her"." Needs tweaking
    I've rewritten that sentence to paraphrase what the quotation is trying to say a little more elegantly. Eric Corbett 12:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I was looking at this source because the mention of animal rights seemed slightly out of place, and there seems to be no mention of the swansdown slippers; I'm not sure how much of that paragraph is actually covered in the source. Perhaps other sources have been removed at some point by accident?

A very enjoyable read. I hope my thoughts are helpful. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it JM, and thanks for your constructive input here, I'm sure there's many good points to address.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments/image review

  • Most of my comments were addressed during PR, and changes made since then make the article better. I just have one comment, and an image review, for you.
  • Stage, film and TV adaptations has many short paragraphs, some of which may be worth merging. Is it possible to rework this a little bit?
  • File:Enid Blyton.jpg -- This looks like a painting rather than a photograph. Is there any reason for selecting this over one of the old revisions (which need to be deleted later)
I did mention this to Eric very recently. I think I prefer [2] and it seemed more informative with her books in the background. I switched it purely because I found the colour of her sweater drab at the time! Do you prefer it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it more illustrative, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The other one is more an iconic image of her though which appeared on a lot of the books I think. Does it really need to be changed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The other one being the pastel-coloured portrait? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Enidblytonsig..jpg - The source needs to be fixed. There is no "own postcard" template. I think this falls under the UK's threshold of originality, meaning copyright-wise it should be okay.
  • File:Seckford Hall - geograph.org.uk - 1000225.jpg is fine copyright-wise, but one wonders if there is anything without so many blown highlights. Also, the description should have an architect and/or year of completion, if known. If the structure is still in copyright, it would be best to have {{FoP-UK}} on the description page.
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:ChildWhispersEnidBlyton.jpg - Phyllis Chase died in 1977, and thus this is not PD in the UK. This should be uploaded locally to Wikipedia, as the English Wikipedia does not require an image to be out of copyright in its source country.
I see one has already been uploaded locally at File:ChildWhispers.jpg. It shouldn't be fair use though. Can you fix Crisco?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Enid blyton books.jpg - Although the individual works may fall under de minimis, I don't think this image is free (and will be nominating it for deletion). The focus is clearly the numerous copyrighted covers, and thus de minimis doesn't quite apply for the work as a whole.
    I've never been fond of that image anyway, so I'm quite happy to lose it. Eric Corbett 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too keen on any of the images in the article to be honest!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Source doesn't say. I've never been keen on that image admittedly so have no problems with it being deleted, I had often wondered about that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on this and the geograph source, it appears that this fence was an official installation of the town. Thus, I think it is safe to assume that they had permission to install Noddy and Big Ears in that location (and thus this is FOP). Just needs an FOP template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It does, at the bottom of the page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:OldThatch-0491.JPG is fine, copyright-wise. The description should have an architect and/or year of completion, if known. If the structure is still in copyright, it would be best to have {{FoP-UK}} on the description page.
Can't find architect or year. Added template.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
(Note that {{FoP-UK}} is not a redlink on Commons, where these images are held). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review, much appreciated. Eric Corbett 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure about the argument for File:Beaconsfield Themed Fencing - geograph.org.uk - 1386378.jpg. As per the wording on the tag, FoP in the UK does not apply to 2D artwork, such as the 2D cut-out characters depicted here (it would apply had this been a 3D statue of Noddy or similar). The images are still under copyright, and thus protected. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not quite "2D", as there is comparable depth to coins (which Commons has held to be 3D objects), or even more depth; this is evident from the edges of the metal plaques/decorations. Furthermore, case law quoted at commons:Commons:FOP#United_Kingdom includes "wrought iron gates" as an example of a work of artistic craftsmanship which may be covered by the FOP laws in the United Kingdom; wrought iron gates would have similar depth to these decorations. Assuming that the city did license the characters, previous consensus appears to be that FOP is acceptable (see this deletion discussion for an example where a licensed derivative work of a copyrighted character was kept under FOP provisions). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dr. B., Eric: please note, if possible, when all have been addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • An iron gate could be FoP, but the copyrighted graphic image painted onto them is clearly 2D - have a look at [3] for an alternative view of the painted image. The FoP provisions don't cover "any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work." The photograph of Arnold was a photograph of a piece of sculpture, which is covered the FoP legislation. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • They do if the object is on public display. Eric Corbett 21:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Eric, the UK FoP tag used on the file states "This does not apply to two-dimensional works", which the cartoon pair would appear to be. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Since you've nominated this image for deletion, let's focus the discussion at the deletion nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Addressed all except the one I asked you to change the license for and the main Blyton image which needs reuploading provided Eric is happy with it and then to delete the old ones. I have no problems with the Noddy image being deleted but the problem is the lack of images. Personally I'd rather use one or two high quality fair use images of her books. Would that not be permitted even if discussed in the text like the seaside theme etc? Ideally I'd have File:FiveOnATreasureIsland.jpg in the new series section and File:Noddy Goes To Toyland 1949 cover.jpg in 1949-59. I think the quality would much improve having those images of very important books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I think, per WP:NFCC#8, there'd have to be discussion of something depicted by her books' covers in order to use them freely. What about book spines, like File:Fleming's paperback Bonds.jpg? I'll see what I can find about the Noddy fence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't own any Noddy books and if I do still have any of the Famous Five or Secret Seven books they're at the deepest part of my attic or my sister's attic storage space and unknown where they are to take photographs of them. Can you suggest somewhere in the article where as it is we could get away with a fair use image? I thought we could get away with using a book cover featuring the island in the discussion of the seaside themes. File:FiveOnATreasureIsland.jpg would really help I think and would seem perfectly appropriate encyclopedically to have an image of the first book in The Famous Five series. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Something may be arguable... though perhaps there is a specific type of island common in her works? That would be easier to illlustrate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the only thing left here is the portrait of Blyton and my lone prose comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerda

I took part in the peer review and was happy with changes made. I looked again now, 22 April, and found much to admire and only minor questions:

Lead: I love the two first paragraphs, but then stumbled: "Blyton encouraged her readers to support worthy causes, as she felt a responsibility to provide them with a strong moral framework." "Them"? Whom? the readers or the causes? Continued in the next sentence. The last phrase "have also been made" strikes me as - plain.

Rewritten as "Blyton felt she had a responsibility to provide her readers with a strong moral framework, so she encouraged them to support worthy causes", and "There have also been several adaptations of her books for stage, screen and television".

Early life and education: The last paragraph (which could be the first of the next topic) includes the first quote. I suggest to start a new sentence after that, or highlight it in a quote box. When I read the following "but" I had forgotten what it related to.

I've split the sentence as per your suggestion. Eric Corbett 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

New series: "Like The Wishing-Chair series"?

Is "As in the The Wishing-Chair series ..." better? Eric Corbett 21:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's ot the "like" as much as the "The", - and in the new version we even have two. I learned that series are not italic, but that makes reading harder (nor will I understand why one book is italic, but five books a not). Boring or not, a preceding "series" would fix it. GA
I hope we've come to a resolution on that, see my reply to you below. Eric Corbett 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Writing style: "the opening pages of her The Mountain of Adventure"?

Removed her; is that what you meant? Eric Corbett 21:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Remove her or remove The. See above, A capitalised The in the middle of a sentence looks strange, and her The even stranger. GA
Ah! That reminds me very much of a similar (and so far unresolved I believe) discussion concerning the names of pop groups in the middle of sentences; should it be "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" for instance? In that discussion I came down firmly on the side of not capitalising "the", much for the same reasons you've given here, so for consistency I'm going to go through the article now and change the case of the series names. There's not much we can do about a mid-sentence "The" when it's part of the book title though, but at least it's formatted differently. Eric Corbett 12:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Stage, film: "The Famous Five has been adapted" is probably correct but the singlar verb looks strange to me.

It's referring to the singular series, so it's probably OK. Eric Corbett 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
As above. GA
I've rewritten that sentence as "There have been several film and television adaptations of the Famous Five ..." to avoid the issue. Eric Corbett 17:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for enjoyable reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adjustments!
Infobox: I think a High School is |educaton= rather than |alma_mater=.
Fixed. Bloody infoboxes! Eric Corbett 12:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I woke up thinking that perhaps removing some book titles would improve the flow. What do you think of a list of her works, such as Franz Kafka works, to not have to cite every single title for the sake of completeness? I think of the 1923 and 1930 paragraphs, for example, which seem a list of titles without pointing out the character or topic of the books, or why we should know those titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This has been an area of slight disagreement between Dr. Blofeld and I, so I'll leave him to reply to this. Eric Corbett 12:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware we were in disagreement. Gerda, Blyton published over 700 books. Are you suggesting we only mention the Famous Five, Secret and Noddy? Some years she published over 50 books and none of them are mentioned in the article. I'd say on the whole there's a fair amount mentioned although in part I suppose you could remove a few if it really does affect the flow but a better solution IMO would be to try to find more information about them which I couldn't find. For me it makes the article more comprehensive, and I don't think we've gone overboard given how many books she produced. I doubt we even mention 1/10 of them. You have a point about those in which we don't go into detail, but there was already a distinct lack of material on her earlier works, and I thought by mentioning them at least it was more informative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the resolute bloody solution, I will wait. (Look on my talk for "The one thing I learned", find "serenely repeating "Peace be with you" against the raging of the enemies", and still 10.000 eggs) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
There's already a list of Blyton's works at Enid Blyton bibliography, which like most stuff here is in need of some work. It was listed in the See also section, but I've moved it up to the beginning of the Early writing career section to make it more prominent. In her way Blyton is just as difficult to write about as Kafka, partly because of the sheer volume of her work, and sorting the wheat from the chaff hasn't been easy. Have we got it right? I don't know. Eric Corbett 17:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies which I answer together. Kafka: I only mentioned him as an example, never intended to compare complexity, - this probably is worse, his output is neat ad compact. - I like the early mentioning of the bibliography! (I confess that I had misunderstood that as a list of books about her, and - shame on me - not even looked.) I still encourage to go through the 1923 and 1930 paras and see if you can drop a few titles or say a bit more about single ones. As it is - title after title - it's boring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That section has little enough coverage as it is IMO. I can see what you mean though, largely a reflection of how little material exists about them. I'll look into it, it might be worth reducing a few. I've fleshed put some of the material and removed mention of a few, I think it looks better now. In looking at it I agreed with you actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ODNB - Unfortunately some of the text in Enid Blyton#Personal life seems to be rather closely based on her ODNB entry. I can provide examples if you like, but the text has survived relatively unscathed since it was added in a series of edits by an IP about eight years ago - which also included additions to Enid_Blyton#Early_life_and_education - taken from the ODNB entry. (Not so much these two - [4] [5] - but these ones: [6] [7] [8].) I'm sure this can be easily fixed. Incidentally, her first husband is quite interesting: I'm sure you know, he was also remarried, just a few days after Blyton, to another author, Ida Pollock, who also became very successful. No doubt her memoir Starlight can add more colour in this section, if desired. -- Ferma (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    I guess that's one of the pitfalls of inheriting an article rather than writing it from scratch. I'll compare the ODNB entry to what's in the Personal life section asap. One of the interesting things in Ida Pollock's autobiography is that she reiterates her husband's claim of Blyton's lesbian relationship, but how far to push that I'm not sure, as I doubt she had personal knowledge of it. Eric Corbett 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

These were my copyedits; I'll return tomorrow and consider supporting. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. Eric Corbett 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyediting and comment John.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Thank you both for your work on this. --John (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sagaciousphil[edit]

I just have one very minor suggestion - in the Commercial success section, sub-heading New series: 1934–48, middle of 3rd paragraph:

  • So popular were Pollock's books they that one reviewer was prompted to observe that "Enid Blyton had better look to her laurels", but Blyton's readers were not so easily deceived - needs 'they' removed and possibly one of the 'that' taken out?

I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the way this article has been developed through the GAN and peer review processes. I'll give it another read through again later today but I feel this is a really well written article supported by very good sources. I'm sure it's not been an easy task as Blyton was a prolific writer. Thanks to both the main editors for such an interesting article on a fascinating subject. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well seen. I took the liberty of fixing this. --John (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks for the fix, John; I realise I could have changed it myself but felt mentioning it here showed I had diligently checked the article and wasn't just randomly supporting. An absorbing read and kudos to the main editors for a job extremely well done - I never knew anything about the lesbian relationships etc! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words and support SP!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Can anybody find who Michael Woods is which is referred to in the simplicity section, I think we need to know who he is. George Greenfield also in the racism section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

American football[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about American football or, as we call it in America, football. This is an introductory article on the sport, so it includes all the basics as well as more in-depth coverage. This article includes:

  • A history section, with extensive detail going into the formative days of the sport and its evolution into the top American sport. For comparison to other FA sports articles, this is longer than the history section in the Association football article, and shorter than the one in the Baseball article. The short length relative to the baseball article is primarily due to the broader coverage in the History of American football article, a featured article.
  • An etymology section, which explains why the sport is unambiguously called 'football' in American despite relatively little use of the foot. It also gives common names for the sport in other countries besides the US.
  • A teams and position section, which gives a basic overview of substitution rules, the division of teams into units, and the specialized roles of each player.
  • A rules section, which gives a basic overview of the fundamentals of the game: scoring, field dimensions, timekeeping, advancing the ball, kicking, and officiating.
  • A leagues and tournaments section, which covers the major American leagues, minor American leagues, and international competition. It also gives an overview of the sport's Olympic history and the main obstacles to Olympic entry (namely, lack of international participation and large team sizes).
  • A safety section, covering common health risks and protective measures that have been made to try and combat them.
  • A section on variations (such as Arena football and amateur play) and related sports (namely, Canadian football).

Overall, it provides a basic but comprehensive overview of the sport. I think it meets all criteria, and is of similar or better quality than our other FA sports articles. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I would expect to find information about the impact of football on U.S. culture and society, just like in baseball#Popularity and cultural impact. Granted that it's not on the same "apple pie"-level as baseball as a cultural icon, but it's still pretty darned American. Just the hullabaloo surrounding the Super Bowl seems like it would deserve its own paragraph. Peter Isotalo 15:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've begun work on this section now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. It's rather strictly focused on audience statistics, how it compares to other sports, etc. Are you sure there's nothing to say about actual cultural aspects? For example, what's the perception of football in the US? High school football seems like something that is a minor field of study of it's own. For example, the archetypal jock always seems to be a football player (preferably a quarterback).
Any chance we'll be seeing anything on football and gender roles, btw? I'll admit that there's a gender perspective on just about anything, but I can hardly think of anything that could be considered more masculine in the US than football. Here's a good source with some references to further studies on the subject.[9]
Peter Isotalo 00:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm still working on the section, it's not complete yet. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Oppose at this time per concerns about completeness, source reliability, neutrality, and cleanliness. These issues can be fixed, in which case I'll give my support if nothing else arises, but it won't be too easy and I really would not feel comfortable with the article passing as is.

  • Elaborate a little on what rugby is like and its ancestral similarities to American football.
  • "Teams and positions" contains an awfully high number of subheaders. I'd merge the level-4 headers into the level-3 ones, considering how short they are.
  • In fact, I think you could probably stick them all under the simple level-2 header, if you wanted, and bullet each of them as is done in "Offices and fouls". Either way, pick something as it looks cluttered as is.
  • For the time being, I have simply removed the level-4 headers. I'll see if I can do anything else. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's fine. Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Likewise, Merriam-Webster is probably not a reliable source for information about those sub-strains of the game. I'd replace it with an exhaustive source about the history of the game, so that another complaint of mine about the coverage of these versions of football can be addressed:
  • It's too brief.
  • How so? I'll note that the baseball article hardly mentions any variant sports like softball, and soccer only devotes a few paragraphs to it. Aside from Canadian football (which has a rather large section), variants like arena football and indoor football are basically the same game with a smaller playing field (and a few rule changes to fit that), and casual variants have rules that are different from person to person. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, that's fair. Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Other sources whose contextual reliability/appropriateness I question:
  • Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
  • How is this unreliable, especially for the only thing it is used to cite (the shape of the ball)? Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Surely you can find a better alternative if it's so obvious? And why isn't the shape or structure of the ball mentioned anywhere else in the article? Tezero (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oxford Dictionaries Online
  • Changed source to NPR. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia Britannica Online
  • I've changed this to now only cite that American and Canadian football are both considered to be forms of gridiron football. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sports Know How
  • Not sure how that got there, removed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • LiveStrong.com
  • Removed; the bit of information is obvious and has been removed, and for some reason the website - despite having the right url - is linking to an entirely different page now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Section ordering is a little weird; Safety should probably go between Rules and Leagues and tournaments.
  • In Popularity and cultural impact, I'd mention something about football, despite its massive popularity, never having made it to the Olympics besides its "demonstration", whatever that means.
  • Technically, this information is already mentioned in a prior section - leagues and tournaments - where it has a whole paragraph elaborating on this in-depth. Should I just move that to the popularity section? Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "American football is by far the most popular sport" - Debatable. By which metrics is it the most popular sport? If none are given in the source, frame it as the author's opinion.
  • Similarly: "is among the biggest club sporting events in the world" - How so?
  • TV viewership; noted now. Toa Nidhiki05 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "professional and college football were the first and third most popular sports" - What was second?
  • Switch the ordering of the UK/other European countries in "Popularity and cultural impact"; it creates a strange contrast to go right from the stigma in the UK to "The sport is also played in..."
  • That whole section should be expanded with information about the sport's evolving popularity in the US over time. The US should definitely have its own paragraph (if not 2+), moreover.
  • Expound on American football's popularity in Japan. I didn't even realize it was a professional sport there; surely there's more to say.

I'll keep this FAC on my watchlist. Tezero (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdrawal due to poor sourcing. A third of the cites are to the official rules themselves (violating WP:NOR), another bunch to the poor-quality For Dummies website, and the rest to the popular press. Barely any scholarly peer-reviewed works feature (a children's book does though). Compare this with the Baseball FA's sources.—indopug (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • How is citing factual assertions about the rules of a sport to the definitive source of rules (namely, rulebooks) original research? I would think they would be the most reliable sources to use, as they are ones declaring the facts on the matter. The baseball article does this with many of its citations.
  • Because they are primary sources, and we shouldn't citing/interpreting them directly if we can help it. And looking at the scholarly Nelson book, we clearly can—why not cite that instead? I'm also curious why uncontroversial statements such as "A football game is played between two teams of 11 players each" requires three citations.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The For Dummies books were written by not just one, but two highly credible sources (namely, a football analyst who was a Hall of Fame player and an editor for a football program that is a Hall of Fame voter), and the "children's book" was written by John Madden, a Hall of Fame coach and football analyst. You might not like the publisher or format, but the writers themselves are more than qualified on hte subject matter.
  • How is citing factual assertions to reliable third-party media outlets a bad thing? Are the BBC, ESPN, USA Today, the New York Times, Popular Mechanics, Time Magazine, The Economist, the International Business Times, and Sports Illustrated not reliable enough sources? WP:SOURCES makes it clear that it is perfectly fine to cite to reputed, non-academic publications.
  • Why exactly does an article need to overload itself with scholarly sources when reliable third-parties more than suffice? The featured article critera makes no such requirement - instead, it says it simply needs to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". And to the contrary, this article does cite from academia when needed - citations 10, 51, and 101 are cited directly to academic sources.
That all aside, I don't really understand how I can make fixes if you don't give direct concerns. Which media outlets I am using are unreliable? What individual media claims should instead be given to academia? Toa Nidhiki05 23:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
But I have listed my direct concern—that this article doesn't nearly present "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (How can it when you admit to not perusing any of the books written on the subject?)
And you've not given me any examples of media outlets I am using that are unreliable for the content cited. And I have read books on the subject - David M. Nelson's fantastic book The Anatomy of a Game is sourced here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
And thus you can make fixes—by withdrawing this article from FAC, and rewriting it using scholarly sources. As you've read in WP:SOURCE, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". You may also want to read this.
That is not helpful at all. You have not given a reason why any of the 153 internal citations in this article are unreliable, save for a few I have proven are in fact reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Further, even the sources that exist in the article should be checked whether they are used correctly. For eg, "Concussions are particularly concerning" is cited to a repository of NYT reporting on head injuries. The very strong claim that concussions in American football are a "particular concern" is not backed anywhere (the medical article at the end of the sentence doesn't mention football). And this is just the first thing I happened to check.
See, this is helpful. Giving me a specific source that isn't good allows me to fix it. Just taking a short look at the article and saying "This is crap because it doesn't use as many scholarly sources as I want" doesn't help me improve this at all. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Lastly, looking at the lead, it's clear that the writing isn't up to par. A most likely reader of this article is somebody who doesn't have a clue about the game. But he is told that "They must advance it at least ten yards in four downs to receive a new set of four downs" without "downs" ever being defined. And then there is tautology (American football evolved in the United States), another unexplained term (snap), easter-egg linking (November 6, 1869) and an acronym out of nowhere (NFL).
Once again, this is more helpful. The terms 'down' and 'snap' are linked - per WP:UNDERLINK, this is an acceptable way to explain technical terms. At the same time I'd be more than willing to define it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It's clear there's simply far too much to be done than is possible within the scope of an FAC.—indopug (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so certain. I'm pretty much always available to fix these sort of issues. If you'd be willing to do a more thorough source check I'd be more than willing to work to correct them. Toa Nidhiki05 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm siding with Toa Nidhiki05 here. indopug, if you don't have the time to actually detail what you want changed, that's not Toa's problem. Tezero (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Indopug is absolutely right about the children's book, though. It has to go, even if it's Madden. The type of sources I'd expect for an FA-level article should cover facts so basic that they've made it into a children's book. So why use the children's book at all? Or is the fact itself dubious? It's a completely unnecessary source of doubt.
And regarding the comparison to baseball, a work like he Meaning of Sports: Why Americans Watch Baseball, Football, and Basketball and What They See When They Do would seem like exactly what this article needs. It's a perfect example of what looks to be a critical, comparative study that could explain the basics of what makes football attractive and how it interacts with US society.
Peter Isotalo 00:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The lone fact cited by the Madden book (Walter Camp being the "Father of American football") is minor, but I've now replaced it with two other sources currently in the article (NFL.com and PFRA). Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kronan (ship)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 14:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since the last one, but this is my sixth FAC so far. This is a quite natural continuation of my interest in naval history and maritime archaeology which began with Vasa (ship) and continued with Mary Rose (both FAs). Kronan is not as well-known and publicized as either Vasa or Mary Rose, but it is in many ways quite similar: an important and prestigious warship that sank tragically, but which has provided valuable historical evidence to scholars today. This article is rather shorter than the ones on the other two ships, but I see that as a natural consequence of lesser notability and that there and less detailed sources.

The article is currently a GA (reviewed by Ealdgyth) and has recently gone through a peer review with valuable input from Dank, Andejons, ÄDA - DÄP.

Peter Isotalo 14:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments with more to come
    • "Only a few months after the peace of 1658, Swedish King Charles X declared war against once more in an attempt to end Denmark's position as an independent state." – against who? (Denmark, I assume) Why did he do so? The move seems pretty politically inept. Also, the link goes to a French king.
    • "In the early 1670s, Sweden was governed by a regency council that was internally weak and had difficulties asserting Swedish power abroad." ... so Charles died? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Rewrote[10] the background. I think that should address it. Peter Isotalo 05:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Continuing my comments: further copyedits are needed, e.g. [11]
    • Can we separate the images? Sometimes you have sandwiches, while other parts have none.
    • Can you get ahold of any detailed plans for the ship, similar to these?
    • Can the distracting {{sv}} templates in the references be moved to the end of the lines? It's difficult to navigate the alphabetical order. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The image situation is not all that good right now. Two rather important pics had to be removed due to being non-FOP models (see discussion below). If fixed one instance, but the images are generally where they are because it's where they belong.
      • Detailed drawings of specific 17th century ships are extremely rare. No such plans exist, I'm afraid. An unfortunate downside of writing on pre-modern ships. :-/
      • {{sv}} have been moved. I'm beginning to wonder if they're actually useful when almost all the sources are in Swedish. Peter Isotalo 09:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that I still think the background section has some misplaced emphasis on Charles X Gustafs Danish wars. It would be more valuable with a paragraph on the state on the Swedish fleet at that time. I'm also not sure if the regency had so much trouble "asserting Swedish power abroad"; the Triple Alliance (1668) was rather an example of the opposite. The Council was weakened because of a conflict between those who wanted exactly that kind of "peace-keeping" politics, and those who preferred to have a strong ally like France, which could pay subsidies to cover holes in the budget.
  • Andejons (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I went back to the Rystad and reworked the background (diff in reply above). I tried to put the wars into a wider context (along with the Torstenson War) and I focused on the foreign policies. I'll work on some more details about the fleet next. Peter Isotalo 05:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Much better! Andejons (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • And here's a paragraph on the navy.[12] Peter Isotalo 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
          • The new paragraph is good, but I'd like to see a year for which it is valid. The point about naval stores is somewhat surprising, since Sweden controlled a lot of the trade of at least some necessities like tar and hemp. Also, the note about the old Swedish ships seems to contradict the earlier note about the extensive building programme. Andejons (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Year added, fixed over-reading of source. I kinda assumed it was an issue with stores, but it was really just crappy maintenance. And the building program was in motion, but the Danes were simply better at it. Peter Isotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support with minor comments

  • A well researched article - I enjoyed reading it.
  • "Golabiewski Lannby, Monica, (1985) The goldtreasure from the royal ship Kronan at the Kalmar County Museum." - if an English work, I believe the MOS would have the title capitalised, e.g. "The Goldtreasure from the Royal Ship Kronan..." Same for "Franzén, Anders, HMS Kronan : the search for a great 17th century Swedish warship "
  • I've some concerns over the copyright on the pictures of the models in the museum. One of these is File:Ship of the line.JPG - assuming that the model is in Sweden, I don't think that this is covered by Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, which only covers public art outdoors (according to the Commons website here), and so would still be under copyright by the original artist/modeller. I think File:Kalmar museum Vrakplatsen.JPG would have similar issues. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! I enjoyed writing it. :-)
  • I actually think that this is the way the title is written, but I don't mind standardizing it.
  • I've actually thought about images of museum models from the perspective, but I've left the issue alone. To me it seems like a very typical "never going to be a problem unless you actually ask for permission"-kinda issue. Do you know of any precedents?
Peter Isotalo 17:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
In the UK, it's not normally a problem, since the FoP rules are different (a permanent model of a ship on display inside a museum is covered by our FoP). In Sweden, though, it does appear to be different. I guess you've got two issues here. One is the question of "how likely is the museum to take you to court?"; I'm not a lawyer, so don't treat this as legal advice (!), but my guess is that a typical museum is unlikely to pursue you over such a picture, unless you started to exploit it commercially etc. The second question are the Commons rules on images, which are pretty clear about the image having to be free for use in both the US and (in this case) Sweden - and these don't seem to be free in either, as the US doesn't have FoP for these sorts of models as far as I'm aware. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
*whine* Couldn't we just pretend we like everything is alright...? :-/ I know you're perfectly right, though, so I'll just remove the pics for now. I'll leave it to someone else to settle the issue over at Commons.
Peter Isotalo 19:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I know how you feel... the arguments over what to do with UK sourced photographs that are valid FoP in the UK, but not in the US, is still rolling on... :( If you want any help in trying to produce a free diagram of the ship, though, I'm happy to help with Inkscape etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
A diagram would be... well... awesome sauce! I possess no skills in the graphics department.
Peter Isotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you know if there is an ideal cross-section diagram out there for the raw data? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen one, no. Could this help...? I'll see if I can get a hold of the archaeological reports. There might be something in there, but I doubt it.
Peter Isotalo 17:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the case. Should have a first version done by this evening. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some disagreement between infobox and cited text - for example, check date construction began. Other details that appear only in the infobox are unsourced
  • "it took until 31 July 1668 before her hull was launched" - source?
  • Why do the Kronanprojektet refs appear in the middle of the "E" in the otherwise-alphabetical reflist?
  • FN2: formatting, and why use a full rather than shortened cite here?
  • Missing bibliographic info for Soop 2007, Johansson 1993
  • FN39: which Einarsson 2005?
  • Isacsson or Isacson? Ericson or Ericsson Wolfe? Gainsford & Jonsson or Johansson? Is Golabiewski Lannby 1985 or 1988? Please check for accuracy and consistency throughout refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think this should fix the lot. Glete (2002) is full because it's really just further reading. I don't think it really belongs in the reference list. And thanks! Peter Isotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • At the Treaties of Brömsebro and Roskilde, Denmark had been forced to cede the islands Gotland and Ösel all of its eastern territories on the Scandinavian Peninsula and parts of Norway. Is there a missing word or two here?
  • In a third war 1658–60) Sweden under Charles X attempted to finish off Denmark for good. Missing opening parenthesis?
  • Charles' successor, Charles XI was only five when his father died, and a regency council with the queen mother Hedvig Eleonora as interim regent Missing verb, I believe.
    • Better, but how about "assumed power" instead?
  • France promised to pay the war subsidies that were in dire need of only on the condition that Sweden move on Brandenburg in force. Awkward. How about rephrasing it to something like "promised to pay the desperately needed war subsidies"?
  • had enjoyed sin typo
  • Despite the recent building program, the Swedish fleet was older and of poorer quality than the Danish fleet, which had replaced a larger proportion of its vessels. Awkward. Rephrase to say that the Danish fleet was newer and more modern or somesuch.
  • The Swedish crews were also less trained than Danish and Norwegian "less well-trained" or poorly trained.
  • a lack professional naval officers plagued the Swedish admiralty lack "of" professional. And the lack plagued the navy as a whole rather than just the Admiralty, I believe. More later; it's time for dinner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    Will this do?[13]
    Peter Isotalo 17:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Swedish Navy is a proper noun and both words need to be capitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to disagree. If you write about modern organizations, there's usually an official name. But 17th century armed forces didn't have names in any meaningful modern sense. Here's an example of how Jan Glete uses the term.[14] There's no proper organizational term in Swedish. Why would there be one in English? Peter Isotalo 21:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I understand your point, but it's irrelevant to the simple fact that English grammar dictates that proper nouns be fully capitalized. Henry VIII's Royal Navy wasn't really a navy as we understand it, but, nonetheless, its name is fully capitalized in every English-language source that deals with it. Official name doesn't come into it at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
          • "Royal Navy" is actually a given name, whether it was official or not. "Swedish navy" is not. It's purely descriptive and is inconsistently capitalized in sources. Peter Isotalo 22:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Btw, I should add that Henry VIII's navy is what we call the Tudor navy. If we were talking about anything before, say, 1600, "English navy" would be pretty appropriate. Our own article on the Royal Navy dates the actual name standardization to 1660s (and includes a "British navy"). And here are various examples of actual usage of "English navy" in print.[15][16][17][18][19] Same appears to be true for the pre-modern "French navy",[20][21][22][23][24][25] "Spanish navy"[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] and "Dutch navy".[40][41][42][43][44][45] You can certainly find sources that capitalize the terms, but they don't appear to be as common. If you look around, you'll even see instances of "French navy" that refers to 20th century history. So I'd say the "proper noun"-argument doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny. Peter Isotalo 14:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Until after about 1650 European shipwrights had not begun building three-deckers on a large scale, and the designs were by the 1660s still quite experimental. Awkward.
  • Both English and French three-deckers were known to be unstable since they were built high, narrow and armed with too many guns. When was this known, presumably after Kronan was built.
  • In effect they were then rendered into over-prices two-deckers Fix this and link two-decker.
  • In the 18th century, ships with the same weight of guns as Kronan were built much more heavily, usually from 3,000 up to 5,000 tonnes, which made them much more stable. Heavily is not the word you want to use here. The extra displacement didn't make the more recent 1st rates more stable, but rather that they were beamier with a deeper draft. The ships were probably also more heavily built, but I'm not an expert on sailing warships.
  • 124–126 guns; 34–36 guns on each of the gundecks and an additional 18 in the forecastle and sterncastle decks. Clarify that the 18 guns were split between the forecastle and sterncastle, not each. Also link sterncastle.
  • Convert a few hundred kg and up to four tonnes.
  • Convert 30 and 18 pounds
  • I was under the impression that chain shot was a later invention. Did they recover some from the wreck?
  • Link pike, boarding axe
  • Fix this: During the excavations large-caliber hakebössor, firearms were found, similar to blunderbusses.
  • And this: that 7–10 hectares (17–25 acres or 0.03–0.04 sq mi) of oak forest of hundred-year-old trees More later.
    • This should address most of it.[46]
    • Regarding instability: 17th century shipbuilding was not an exact science and safety margins were horrendous by modern standards. It was always a compromise between a degree of instability and, well, crappy warships with too few guns in wrong places.
    • Convert "a few hundred kg" to what? "Few" doesn't divide by 0.453. And tonnes are so close to tons that there really isn't much point in specifying it times 0.9. Both are approximate measurements. And why convert random gun poundage? The general weight span is converted once, but I don't see the benefit of converting it all over the place.
    • Boarding axe doesn't exist, I'm afraid. A separate article on one seems a bit too specific. It's just an axe. Peter Isotalo 10:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose on prose. I see quite a few awkward constructions, including "wasn't", "summer" and the issue Sturmvogel highlights above. Otherwise it looks ok. --John (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the "wasn't", but I don't really understand what the "summer"-comment is about. I'll run through the text again to look for prose problems.
I'd really like some explanation of why it has to be "Swedish Navy", though. Here are further examples of "Swedish navy" in various types of literature, including academic works.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] Note that most of these books mention "Royal Navy" and capitalize it, but consciously avoid it in other cases. This has not been considered a problem in other promoted articles like Mary Rose ("English navy", "Tudor navy"), Vasa (ship), Dano-Swedish War (1658–60), Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–73), Livonian War, English cannon (though inconsistent) or the recently promoted Battle of Öland. There's also Byzantine navy to consider and various other pre-modern naval forces. If it's a formality, what guideline are being invoked?
Peter Isotalo 08:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
After a second look, I now think this article needs a thorough, top-to-bottom copyedit to meet standards. --John (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll get cracking right away. Could you clarify the "summer"-comment and the capitalization issue, though?
Peter Isotalo 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh sure. WP:SEASON recommends not using "spring", "summer" etc. to denote time unless the season is important to the event. I can see the arguments for both the capitalised and uncapitalised versions; national navies are usually considered as proper nouns and are therefore capitalised. The fact that the Wikipedia article is at Swedish Navy and not Swedish navy is not definitive but it is another little piece of evidence pointing towards using the capitalised version. --John (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I changed one instance of "autumn". The rest seem fine to me. Could you provide more specific examples?
Yes, I understand that there are arguments either way, both of which are relevant in their own ways. So I'm saying that right now, this is a matter for WP:MILTERMS, not an FAC.
Peter Isotalo 20:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's fine with me. This oppose stands. This is one of the poorest FAC candidates I have seen for years. I wonder how it got through GA as it does not even meet the lower criteria for that. --John (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Please be more specific. Your comments are very critical, but not specific enough to be actionable.
Peter Isotalo 08:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Did you see the link I posted (twice) above to WP:SEASON? This is part of our Manual of Style, adherence to which is criterion 2. That's an easy one to action; that you have not done so makes me think you are not serious about this nomination. There are an awful lot of instances of really poor writing in the article and it would need some major work to meet 1a, in my opinion. What is the past tense of the verb "to lead"? FAC is not an article improvement process but a peer review, and I do not think this article can be made to pass the criteria without some serious work which I do not think you are able or willing to give to it. --John (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read the link and honestly don't see any problems. That's why I asked for a specification. I just haven't encountered that particular complaint before.
So far, I have trouble spotting the issues you're concerned about. Yes, you've found a misspelling of "lead" (introduced by a passing editor). But I don't see how that's reason enough to talk of "really poor writing".
Peter Isotalo 18:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it was introduced more than once then. --John (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Twice it is. Good thing you spotted it. So how about those specifications?
Peter Isotalo 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments – repetition, mainly.

  • Just looking at the lead, I find the word "she" used too frequently, in view of the distaste of some readers for the gendered ship pronoun. There are seven "she/her" in the first nine-line para alone, and then one per line. Perhaps these gendered words could be rotated with "the vessel", "the ship", "the Kronan", so it's not hammered at us?
  • After × 2. Perhaps the second one "Following"?
  • Failure × 2. Perhaps the second "losses"?
  • "Yearly diving operations have since been conducted to survey and excavate" -> "Yearly diving operations have since surveyed and excavated"?
  • More than 30,000 is nicer; but that's merely a personal pref. You could remove "so far" and "of them" and "today". Tony (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for commenting. Here are the relevant fixes.[55] I think the "she" for hsips can be bretty handy at times, but I really don't mind either way. In future ship-related articles, I might consider dropping it altogether.
    Peter Isotalo 11:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    Peter, I know some people feel strongly about keeping it; but just exchanging a few instances of the word at the opening would be good style whatever the line on this be. I'll try to return on Friday. Tony (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Nuthatch[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Eurasian Nuthatch is the most widespread of its family, breeding from Great Britain to Japan. It is an inveterate hoarder of seeds and nuts, and the female is a dab hand at customising the entrance to the nest cavity by plastering it to get the hole to the right size Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Inveterate" is a word I'd like to use more than I do.

  • "particularly caterpillar and beetles" should be "caterpillar and beetle" or "caterpillars and beetles", surely?
doh... fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Does the superspecies have a name?
Not that I know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What does the Ancient Greek term translate to?
"nuthatch", clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "There are 21 or 22 subspecies" Or 23, maybe. Perhaps "There are over 20 subspecies, but the precise number is disputed. These taxa can be..."
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "usually with a loud, sharp dwip usually repeated twice" Repetition
Varied Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "distinctive S. e. arctica is said to be distinctly different" Repetition
Varied Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the maximum known age is 12 years 11 months" Where was this one?
The UK apparently, fixed with new ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "eating man-made food" Not gender neutral- synthetic? Artificial?
I don't like those, human-made Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Hoarding is a long-term strategy, stored food items only being consumed when fresh food was hard to find, sometimes up to three months after caching." Tense shift (see following sentences, too)
fixed both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Beech mast crops vary widely from year to year. Where beech is important, adult survival rates are largely unaffected by the availability of mast, but juvenile autumn survival is locally reduced in poor years by starvation or emigration.[20] Similar results were found where common hazel was the prevalent tree species.[26]" I don't know what this means
Rephrased for greater clarity (?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "A Swedish study showed that 6.2% of the Nuthatch nests in their study area were raided by predators. The perpetrators were not identified, but the main single predator of tit nests in the same study was the Great Spotted Woodpecker." Reference?
Oops, I'd split the sentence off from its ref, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Common Starlings will take over nuthatch nest holes" Are you referring to the Nuthatch or nuthatches generally? Same later in the paragraph
Fixed both
  • "A Belgian study indicated that the problem appears not to be severe enough to require culling of the parakeets." I don't like "require". How about "Ornithologists conducting a 2010 Belgian study suggested that the problem was not so severe as to warrant culling of the parakeets."
Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Six species of mites of the genus Ptilonyssus have been found in the Eurasian Nuthatch's nasal cavities, and one was first formally identified in this bird.[37] Intestinal worms include the nematodes Tridentocapillaria parusi and Pterothominx longifilla." Worth listing the mites? Worth redlinking the nematodes? Nothing wrong with redlinks!
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "have between 10,000–100,000 breeding pairs." How about "have between 10,000 and 100,000 breeding pairs." or "have 10,000–100,000 breeding pairs."?
"and" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The nuthatch is common throughout" Again- Nuthatch?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What's a "cone crop"?
clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a strong article. I'm musing a little about the subspecies information; I'm wondering if a slightly more detailed table would be needed... J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Trouble is, "slightly" isn't really an option. I made the conscious decision to deal only with the ssp groups to avoid a very long table (which nobody is going to read), listing the minor differences between the 20+ forms and obscuring the three groups. It seems too much information to me. I could easily do it if it is an issue, but it wouldn't be my choice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your review and comments I thought I wouldn't get away without red links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Another way to do the subspecies would be to have a list article; List of Eurasian Nuthatch subspecies. That way, you could keep the minimal data in this article, but then include other information (date, describing author, range and minor physical differences) in the other one; the list could be split based on subspecies group, with a lead giving basic information about the species as a whole and greater information about the taxonomy. A few hours (and a lot of fiddling with tables...) and you could have a FLC. J Milburn (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, leave that with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, as long as nothing else comes up (and on the condition the source and image checks come back OK). J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Final image caption should not end in period
  • Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for image review, full stop removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone Looks pretty good. I did find these:

  • "a family of similar-looking birds with short tails and wings, a compact body and a longish pointed bill." The article needs to choose singular or plural and stick to it (although wings plural is OK, since each bird has two :-)). Eg "a family of similar-looking birds with short tails and wings, compact bodies and longish pointed bills." or "a family of similar-looking birds that have a short tail and wings, a compact body and a longish pointed bill." I think the latter sounds odd, so would go with the former. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "has been considered conspecific with all of these in the past". Does this mean, rather: "has in the past been considered conspecific with all of these"? In other words, are we talking about the evolutionary past (the former wording), or in past research papers (the latter, which I am guessing is what was intended)? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the images has this caption: "Feeding at bird table in winter." I'm not sure it should have the full stop, but it also is missing a word i think. Other captions do not use this abbreviated style. I think it should probably read "Feeding at a bird table in winter" or "A Eurasian Nuthatch feeding at a bird table in winter." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Done per your first suggestion. The article title shouldn't normally appear in captions, since it's assumed unless otherwise stated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Great images, including the lovely video clip. Any chance of an audio recording of the species?

Ultimately, i wonder whether WP will maintain articles about birds at FA without recordings of their calls, or articles about artists without images of their works, but such future multimedia issues aside, I'm a support.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for support, I've added an EL link to a wide range of recordings at xeno-canto Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Lead

Two sentences have phrases linked by "and" where I feel the ideas are barely close enough - but you may disagree:

  • "Food items are found on tree trunks and large branches, and the nuthatch can forage when descending trees head first, as well as when climbing."
Split Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Its main predator is the Eurasian Sparrowhawk, and it may be infected with a variety of internal and external parasites."
Removed parasites, not needed in lead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Description

  • "In the eastern form S. e. asiaticus some males have buff underparts..." Should there be commas around "S. e. asiaticus"?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Insoutheast Europe and southwest Asia, the Western and Eastern Rock Nuthatches are larger ..." This sentence is very long. Suggest splitting.
Split Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Breeding

  • "The incubation period in Siberia is slightly shorter than in Europe at 18–22 days." Longer?
I can't even see where this came from, removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Feeding

  • Beechmast or Beech mast?
consistently two words now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Predators and parasites

  • "and grey wolf" I find it hard to believe that the predation by the grey wolf is significant.
Me too, it's not impossible that a nuthatch might be caught on the ground, but now removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "A similar outcome of adult survival and juvenile losses in years of low nut production were also found where common hazel was the prevalent tree species.[27]" This reads slightly oddly to me - "were also found" refers to a study that is not mentioned in the previous sentence.
Rephrased to be more similar to the beech bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Status

  • It makes no sense to quote the breeding area and potential suitable habitat to 6 significant figures - 2 would be adequate. I was able to download the cited source, Menon et al, from the university repository here. I have no specialist knowledge in this area but I'm very suspicious of the methodology used and the significance of the 87% value. Other authors haven't cited this work. Thomson Reuters Web of Science only list one citation - and that is a self-citation. Google scholar gives two citations. Have you a better source for the breeding area, preferably one that roughly agrees with the map used in the article?
Found an impeccable source for breeding range, rephrased as which is a large proportion of the potential suitable habitat,[43]. I think this is self-evident, but I can remove that altogether if you don't like it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  • ref 14 Enokssson, Bodil. Why is the first name included here?
stupidity, removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ref 37 Strubbe et al. I hope the authors were more careful with the content than they were with the spelling in the title.
Me too, I can't really change their spelling though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ref 41 Why isn't the pdf linked to the title?
Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited texts Matthysen The Nuthatches. Should the publication date be 1998? The isbn 9780856611018 leads to a 1998 edition on Worldcat. Is the 2010 edition a reprint? One can view the 1998 edition on Amazon This seems a solid source that I'm surprised you don't cite more often.

  • Year fixed, I think I put the Kindle edition date. There is, as you would expect, a good deal of overlap between Mattysen, Harrap & Quinn and HBWAlive. I have Harrap and a subscription to HBWAlive, so Mattysen, which I can only partially access through Google books, was mainly filling in the gaps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The year still needs to be changed in the References. Aa77zz (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good. Aa77zz (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm at present in Corsica and when I read "although it is absent from the islands, other than Sicily,..." I looked up the Corsican Nuthatch - only to find that it is considered a separate species. Aa77zz (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Never been there, weather must be better than here. Yes, Corsican Nuthatch is quite different. I'll do the rest of your queries tomorrow, watching Athletico Madrid v Chelsea at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for review and comments, all done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support - meets the criteria. In reviewing these articles I'm gradually learning a little about birds. Aa77zz (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for support, I've fixed the dates now too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 31 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  05:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the third-longest highway in the state of Michigan. Running for over 350 miles, US 31 parallels the Lake Michigan shoreline in Michigan's Lower Peninsula. The highway's current designation dates back to 1926, and like other highways in the state, it was partially converted into a freeway. One segment of freeway built for US 31 has been sitting unused for over a decade now, waiting for the final piece to be built. That section was delayed for many years over a butterfly, but now it's a matter of funding the project. Imzadi 1979  05:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review:
  1. File:US 31.svg - PD-MUTCD
  2. File:US 31 (MI) map.svg - CC-BY-SA-3.0, has GIS data
  3. File:1-196 BLACK RIVER BRIDGE SOUTH HAVEN.jpg - PD-user
  4. File:US Route 31 Winston Road (Michigan).jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  5. File:US 31, Manistee, Michigan.jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  6. File:Grandview Parkway Traverse City.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  7. File:US31 Sign Looking North Bay View Michigan.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  8. File:Alanson Michigan Downtown 2 US31.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  9. File:Michigan's Indian trails.png - PD US not renewed, published in 1959
  10. File:US 31 in 1936.png - PD US no notice, published in 1936
  11. File:US Route 31 Oceana Drive (Michigan).jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  12. File:Mitchell's Satyr butterfly.jpg - CC-BY-3.0, OTRS permission confirmed
  13. File:Lake Michigan Circle Tour.svg - CC-Zero, OTRS permission confirmed
  14. File:Charlevoix II.JPG - CC-BY-3.0
  15. Captions are fine.
  • Support - Images check out and prose meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Larry Doby[edit]

Nominator(s): Zepppep, Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Even those who aren't baseball fans know the story of Jackie Robinson, the saga of the first African-American to play in the major leagues. This article is on the second African-American to play in the major leagues, one who had to endure the same hardships as Robinson, yet has largely been forgotten, unfairly so given that both players were Hall of Famers. Larry Doby's career was one of perseverance and determination, not to mention a good number of home runs.

As for why I'm nomming it, after it became a GA, I did multiple top-to bottom rewrites on it in an attempt to bring it here and get it on the main page one day. I believe now it's as good as it will like ever be, and it now meets all FA criteria. Wizardman 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Wizardman. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed that one, looking through the rest of the article since there may be more instances like that. Wizardman 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review - All images are used appropriately, and the first two (the baseball cards) are in the public domain per the Library of Congress, as the copyright was not renewed. The last image is a self-created image by User:Silent Wind of Doom, and is appropriately licensed. Check an image review off the list. Go Phightins! 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Looking good generally. I've read down to the end of "Early life", and it is very readable so far. Just a little prose polish needed here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead:

  • "He helped the Indians win a franchise-record 111 wins and the AL pennant in 1954 and finished second in the AL Most Valuable Player (MVP) award voting as the season's RBI leader and home run champion for the second time in three seasons. “: “win … wins", “and…and…and"
  • "the first black player to integrate the American League" and later “the first African-American players to win a World Series championship": Not a big deal, but is there any particular reason why we use first black, then African-American? Or is it just for variety?
  • And on this subject, should something about being a pioneering black player be mentioned in the first paragraph? Otherwise, we wait until the second paragraph to make a fairly major point.

Early life:

  • "Doby was born in Camden, South Carolina to David and Etta.": I think it is better if we give their surnames here as well.
  • "He died at the age of 37 from a drowning accident in New York state": A drowning accident? We don’t need all of this here: what about “He drowned in an accident in New York state, aged 37"?
  • Obvious question: why did he not go with his mother?
  • "The first opportunity he had to play organized baseball was while a student at Browning Home-Mather Academy": Perhaps better as “organized baseball came as a student…"?
  • "Richard Dubose, known in local African-American circles for his baseball expertise": Locally, or nationally?
  • "including how he and play mates": Should play mates be one word?
  • "including how he and play mates would use worn down broom handles for bats": I don’t think we really need “would" here; it may be better as “play mates used worn down broom handles".
  • "although he would be living full-time with a friend of his mother's and visit his mother once per week": Again, I’m not a huge fan of the “would" construction here.
  • "Doby lettered in track and was an all-state athlete in baseball": This is pretty meaningless outside North America, so some links, notes or further explanation may be needed.
  • "the team voted in support of Doby to forgo the trip.": Is this better as “the team voted to forgo the trip as a gesture of support for Doby"?
  • "He also enjoyed a brief stint with the Harlem Renaissance": Do we know he enjoyed it? If this is just a synonym for “had", perhaps a more neutral word is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Negro leagues’’’:

  • "A Negro league umpire, Henry Moore, advised Newark Eagles' owners Abe and Effa Manley to give Doby a tryout at Hinchliffe Stadium in Paterson. The tryout was successful, and Doby joined the Eagles in 1942 at the age of 17 for $300.": Can we combine these sentences in some way to avoid repeating “tryout"?
  • "Of the games Doby played in, 26 box scores have been found and concluded his batting average was .391.": As written, this states that the box scores worked out his average.
  • "Before serving in the Pacific Theater of World War II, Doby would spend time at Navy sites in Ogden, Utah and San Diego, California" and “While in Hawaii, Doby would meet fellow Navy man and future teammate Mickey Vernon": Again, it is better to avoid the “would" construction.
  • "For one year he was stationed on Ulithi in the Pacific Ocean in 1945": Redundancy?
  • "Doby saw real hope in being a professional baseball player instead of his aspirations to be a teacher and coach.": Something does not quite work here. Instead of his aspirations?
  • "He made the All-Star roster and batted .360 (fourth in the NNL), hit five home runs (fifth) and led the NNL in triples (six).": And…and Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Integration of American League’’’:

  • For the benefit of anyone who may be unfamiliar with this sorry tale, could we briefly explain why the league was not integrated already?
  • "Veeck had already undertaken efforts in hopes of locating a young, talented player from the Negro leagues": Efforts to do what?
  • "The reporter suggested Doby, of whom Veeck had seen play at the Great Lakes Naval Training School."
  • "Unlike Rickey, who declined to pay for the purchasing rights of Robinson with the Kansas City Monarchs": Lost me here…
  • "It would be the only game Doby would start for the remainder of the season. Doby finished the game 1-for-4, recording his first major league hit and RBI in a 5–1 Indians win": Can we explain these numbers?
  • "Said noted former player Rogers Hornsby, after watching Doby play one time in 1947:": I think it is better as “Noted former player Rogers Hornsby said, after watching…"
  • "Doby roomed alone his rookie year, and in some cities, namely Chicago and St. Louis, was not allowed to stay in the same hotels as his white teammates.": This is almost repeating what the earlier long quote says. Do we need both, or can they be combined?
  • I think this section may need a bit more on Jackie Robinson, to give a little more context and for comparison. As your intro here says, Doby was the second black player, but we do not say so in this section, where it would make most sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comments so far. I'll try to get to them all in the next couple days, though depending on work I may just sweep through them all over the weekend instead. Wizardman 00:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Source comment - I suppose this is a relatively minor concern, however since Doby is an American, and thus the article is on an American topic, should dates not be expressed in mdy format as opposed to dmy (per WP:STRONGNAT? Not a hill on which I am willing to die, but a consideration nonetheless. Go Phightins! 00:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    The prose is all in mdy format. Since the refs were all consistent I decided not to change them to that format; if that is an issue I can always swap those. Wizardman 00:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Silverplate[edit]

Nominator(s): Reedmalloy (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is another in the Manhattan Project series. Originally the name for the aircraft modification project for the B-29 Superfortress bomber to enable it to drop an atomic weapon, Silverplate eventually came to identify the training and operational aspects of the program as well. The article passed Good Article and A class reviews last year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bockcar at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. Note the tail marking.
  • For one brief, happy, moment I thought it might be on actual silver plate, but even as I clicked, I knew my hopes were doomed. Oh well, at least it's not a racehorse. The only thing I'll say is that the arrow-in-circle "play" icon on the lead pic looks as though it's a logo on the plane's tail, which I thought it was at first. If it can be moved, that would be better. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2014 (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) 14:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed at ACR, and think it meets the standards for FA. Even if it's not a racehorse... ;) NB: I thought it was a logo on the tail, like the picture below it? If it's not supposed to be a logo, I'm happy to have a go at digitally removing it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I think you're right. It doesn't play a video for sure! Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm wracking my brains to think of a race horse. Was it Silver Charm, which won the Kentucky Derby back in 1997? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

  • The only issue that I have is with the use of the CPI for price inflation. I've run into this issue with warships and I don't believe that the CPI is actually useful as weapon prices are effectively capital costs.
    • I don't quite agree with that characterization for an aircraft of which hundreds are built on a production line, as opposed to a warship, of which very few are normally built. There's also an ongoing debate still about whether the cost of an aircraft includes the R&D cost. This causes it to appear that the aircraft gets cheaper as you build more of them. The CPI gives us a comparative value for consumer goods. Ideally, the figure would accurately cover what it would costs to build a B-29 (not a B-2 bomber) today. It think it gives a reasonable idea of relative values in terms of goods forgone. The ABS publishes a number of other indices, but most readers would not have seen them before and we don't have the automated calculation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I missed that it was using CPI... I'd agree that the use of CPI here is inappropriate - it's only a valid comparison method for certain types of goods and services, but not military aircraft. The wiki inflation template used in the section, which in turn uses the CPI data, notes on its page that "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research." You'd probably want one of the measures that uses a share of GDP approach. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Using anything else would be OR, so I've removed the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm also a ACR reviewer and I would suggest to the delegates that another non-MilHist reviewer review the article before any decision to promote is made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, getting at least one review from outside the related project (whether that project be MilHist, Roads, Video Games, X-Files, or whatever) is always preferred. Incidentally, we could also use a source review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Saltwell Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A second attempt at FAC for a beautiful Victorian park. The article is ready; it just needs the support of the community. I'm here to answer any queries raised... Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I've got some concerns here, especially regarding referencing. Contrary to my habits, I've not closely audited reference formatting.

  • Perhaps most importantly, a substantial amount of this article is sourced to references that I'm not sure are independent, third-party sources. Carlton's book, published by the Gateshead Corporation. The Gateshead Council, Gateshead Libraries, and NewcastleGateshead websites. None of these appear to be independent sources, and cumulatively, they provide the bulk of the article's citations.
  • The Tyne & Wear SiteLines references are all dead links. Is/was this a reliable source?
  • Why is this a reliable source?
  • Why is this a reliable source, as it appears to be largely operated and edited by a single person?
  • The North East Film Archive reference is a dead link.
  • Why was the list of events discussed chosen for inclusion? Many of them seem like run-of-the-mill activities that would not be unusual for any park of comparable size, and are cited largely to the local newspaper. Things like the Field of Remembrance that received national attention are one thing, but when the only coverage is in one or two Newcastle upon Tyne dailies...
  • The article's structure has some flaws. For example, there's a war memorial introduced in "Design and layout" that's actually never explicitly identified; I was able to puzzle out that it was the Boer War memorial only after reading the following section.
  • Prose is also a concern. I'm not attempting a comprehensive prose review at this time (nor is it my strong suit), but a few sentences stood out even on a quick read:
    • "This has been in situ since a tender to install a 4 acres (1.6 ha) lake with an island in the centre was accepted in August 1880."
    • "The park is also host to three well-used bowling greens, replete with their own pavilion (the Avenue Green Pavilion) and a rose garden."

On the whole, I have to oppose promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to give a weak oppose for the time being per Squeamish's sourcing concerns and the following wording issues:

  • "ha-ha" should probably be categorized as a type of wall. If I hadn't clicked the link, I'd have assumed it was just silly vandalism.
  • "adjacent, banked bedded planting" - awkward
  • "Caged animals are still kept in the north-east of the park in an area called "Pets Corner", where there are a peacock and peahen, pheasants, rabbits and guinea pigs[13] kept in a pair of aviaries built in 1880 and paid for by John Elliot, then chief constable of Gateshead.[8]" - awkwardly structured and a bit of a run-on
  • "Gateshead Council subsequently considered other sites for a second park, but it was discouraged by the high prices being asked by the estate owners at Redheugh and Shipcote." - What's being discouraged?
  • That whole paragraph contains somewhat stilted use of the passive voice.
  • "The park is split into three sections – southern, central and northern areas – and the entire park is bordered by perimeter shrubs, plants and trees." - Why refer to "the park" and "the entire park" for two clauses in the same sentence?

I'll keep this on my watchlist in case you address my concerns. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Vannevar Bush[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an engineer, inventor and science administrator, who was the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II. Part of a series of articles on the Manhattan Project. He is also known for his work on analog computers, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex, which introduced the concept that we now know as the hyperlink. Article passed GA and A class reviews back in 2012, but it now takes two years to bring an article to FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. "His office was considered one of the key factors in winning the war" becomes clearer as the reader moves through the article, but I'm not sure if the meaning is clear in the lead. Also, in American English, if I say I'm going to meet you for lunch, it's clear that I'm not saying "I'll encounter you for the first time" (though I would be!), but "Lincoln met Emerson in Washington in February 1862" means that's the first time they met. Someone has gone through changing every "met with" to "met", and that changes the meaning, or at the very least makes the meaning ambiguous. My understanding is that the rules are different in BritEng, which adds a complication, but not a sufficient complication to justify those edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be! The Wiktionary says that In the sense "come face to face with someone by arrangement", meet is sometimes used with the preposition with in American English. This is also true is AusEng, but here "meet with" means to have a formal meeting — one of those meetings where there is an agenda and minutes. Looking through the change history reveals that change was made by an IP editor from Norway in April 2013. I've reversed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone wanted a reference for the pronunciation of Bush's first name. I've never heard of that being questioned before. I'm taking the word of the phonologists that the symbols are correct. However, I do know how it is pronounced. You can hear it straight from the man himself through one of the article's external links, thanks to a technology that lets us listen to dead people. (Wind through to the 13-minute mark.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Truman caption should not end in a period
  • File:DA_Cambridge_c1937.jpg: this is missing a US PD tag, but I'm also concerned about the life+70 tag - who created the image, and what was his/her date of death?
  • File:Lawrence_Compton_Bush_Conant_Compton_Loomis_83d40m_March_1940_meeting_UCB.JPG: the given source link redirects here - why?
  • File:Hanford_Site_Selection_Team.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Kepler-solar-system-2.gif: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Removed.
  2. I have no idea. WP:CONEXCEPT applies here. We are not allowed to query decisions made on Commons.
  3. The site imglib.lbl.gov no longer exists. There's a feature that displays a custom site for a 404 error. So instead of getting ugly 404s, we now get helpful spam. smile
  4. Added a link to another usage. It seems that Wayback is forbidden from archiving the site.
  5. Added a US PD tag.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Murder[edit]

Nominator(s): Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Murder is a side-scrolling action role-playing-beat 'em up video game for the XBLA on the Xbox 360. After I began writing the game, I reached out to the studio and they released sixteen images, which is awesome. This is my first FAC, and it's taken me a while to get good enough at writing articles to feel comfortable taking this step... so please be merciful. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sven Manguard. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead
    • Fixed, thanks. -Sven
  • FN12: author name is inverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Normally yes, although in those cases I thought that the citation was fine where it was. Nonetheless, I've made the modifications. -Sven


Review from czar[edit]

  • I don't have much time, but I'd be happy to review this over a future weekend if you want the input (just send me a {{ping}}). I do a full review and copyedit (if it is worth doing), image checks, and spot source checks, but I review for fairly high 1a prose quality: fair warning. czar  15:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar  15:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  1. "an army raised by a former band": raised? are they undead? If so, say so. Also how was the army raised by the band member? Vengeance? Accident? Add this
  2. "Players select to play as one of five band members, each of whom uses a different instrument and has different special abilities related to that instrument." The band hasn't been introduced yet, so I don't know what band that is. Are the instruments for attacks? (Say so)
  3. What does a beserker do?
  4. Prose went from talking about ability to talking about roles
  5. "co-op" should be related to "cooperative" (needs to be written for a layman)
  6. so what do the tattoos upgrade?
  7. All in all, this section leaves a lot of questions about how the game is played? There are just two buttons and a bunch of upgrades and you fight? What about bosses and whether co-op makes the game different and what abilities do and how levels differ and so on?
  8. Jargon needs way more clarification overall, and links to relevant pages to read more
  9. "The player-character is killed at the beginning of the game" who?
  10. "The band is tasked": where did the band come from? I thought we were on a single character?
  11. "talk about the band and the game world": is this what they discuss or do they "talk about the game's lore"
  12. multiple cites at the end of a paragraph should mean that all three cites cite everything in the ¶
  13. If you take a look at my edit, quotes are rarely needed where paraphrasing can do
  14. "In April, the game was announced as in development ": announced by whom
  15. "The game was eventually released in August 2013": what happened in-between? Lots of dev details missing here
  16. the dating section needed to be completely reordered—look at the changes
  17. "Silva did all of the game's programming work, while Juett handled its marketing." What game? CM? Dishwasher?
  18. The Reception section uses way too many quotes and not enough paraphrasing. I'm going to hold off on my copyedit of this section until that's addressed since it will rewrite the whole section.
  19. I'd also limit the first ¶ to overall feedback—what reviewers agreed on, what the aggregators said, what awards or nominations it received.
  20. Overall thoughts: The article is really sparse. It might meet FAC standards if the prose shines, but I don't think it meets the basic broad coverage criteria until it covers a whole lot more ground in all of its existing sections (as alluded above)

Good work. Give me a ping when these are all fully addressed and I'll continue. I'm also looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar  15:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed all of your bullets to numbers, because otherwise, so that when I address them below your signature, it will make keeping track of which response is to which point much easier. I hope you don't mind.
  1. Working
  2. Working
  3. Working
  4. Working
  5. Working
  6. Working
  7. Working
  8. Working
  9. Working
  10. Working
  11. Working
  12. Working
  13. Working
  14. Done.
  15. Working
  16. Working
  17. Working
  18. Working
  19. Working
  20. Working
I will fill these in as I get to them. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Template:Video game reviews gives quick references to the reviews quoted in the prose, why isn't Hardcore Gamer included? Do you even need the scores in the prose? On the other hand, you quote The Digital Fix and Gaming Nexus, but give no indication of their score. Why have you chosen to use these sources over more established names? Is Metacritic alone insufficient for demonstrating the critical consensus? - hahnchen 14:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article's looking fairly close. Ping me when you've cleaned czar's comments off the table and I'll give mine, as it could be difficult or contradictory to satisfy both—and any further comments we give—simultaneously. Tezero (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Poltava (1894)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC) and Buggie111 (talk)

Poltava was one of five Russian battleships captured and put into service by the Imperial Japanese Navy after the Russo-Japanese War. She was sunk by land-based artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur in shallow water that allow the Japanese to refloat and repair her. Her only combat during World War I was during the siege of the German-owned port of Tsingtao. The Russians bought her back in 1916 and she had little to do in the White Sea in 1917–18. Her crew declared for the Bolsheviks in October, but they must have been pretty apathetic as the ship made no resistance when the British intervened in the early stages of the Russian Civil War in 1918. No longer seaworthy, they used her as a prison hulk before abandoning her in 1919 when they left North Russia. The Bolsheviks recaptured her in 1920, but just scrapped her in 1924. Buggie111 did the original work several years ago and I've expanded it with material from new sources. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and should be in pretty good shape. But experience has shown me that something is always overlooked and I trust that reviewers will find any such infelicities as well as points that need to be clarified for non specialists.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Russian_battleship_Poltava.jpg needs source, author date of death, and US PD tag. Same with File:Russian_Battleship_Poltava_sunk_in_Port_Arthur.jpg
    • First image replaced with a Swedish postcard.
  • File:Tango1908-1909.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for checking these out so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support

Description
  • "Poltava, however, reached a top speed of 16.29 knots (30.17 km/h; 18.75 mph) from 11,213 indicated horsepower (8,362 kW) during her sea trials. " I'm not sure the "however" is justified, a difference of .29 knots doesn't seem worth it. Perhaps "though"
  • Agreed, although rephrased a bit differently.
Construction
  • Is there any known reason for the delay between constructions and sea trials? Four years seems a bit long.
  • Russian shipyards were very inefficient during this time.
  • "to reduce their draft enough" is it draft or drafts under this situation?
  • I think it could go either way, but I also think that it should technically be plural.
Port Arthur
  • A further issue was the Russian failure to withdraw its troops from Manchuria in October 1903." Why was this a failure and why the specific month? They presumably did not withdraw their troops in September or November either. Were they obliged to do so, or had they promised?
  • Promised.
  • "The ship participated in the action of 13 April …" The two clauses stating that Poltova, and Petropavlovsk each participated seems confusing and should more logically be combined into one.
  • See how it reads now.
More later.Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll look forward to more helpful comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Resuming
  • "landed many of her 47 mm and 37 mm guns to reinforce the landward defenses " I would say "shore defenses" or similar to avoid the repetition.
  • "sortied in an attempt to escape to Vladivostok in the morning, around 07:00" I would rearrange to avoid the impression that "Vladivostok" and "morning" are related.
I read through the rest of it and didn't have anything, other than a couple of things I made directly. I see no reason in dragging out the inevitable.
Support. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Done and thanks for your quick review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments - I guess a few things can be overlooked even by the same reviewer ;)

  • A duplicate link weaseled its way into the lead since I reviewed it at ACR
  • It might be good to make clear that the abortive sortie to Vladivostok in June ended without combat
  • "They were intercepted by the Japanese fleet in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea at 12:55." - this sounds like somebody coined the name "Battle of the Yellow Sea" at 12:55 - perhaps better to rework it as "The Japanese fleet intercepted the Russian ships at 12:55 in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea" (and as a bonus, it drops the passive voice).
    • Excellent idea.
  • Linking "battleship" to Russian battleship Poltava (1911) might be a little WP:EGGy. Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Is it worth linking to the later ship at all? I think that the link to dreadnought is worth retaining, but I'm not sure that the link to the actual ship is? Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I usually do, especially if there's a significant connection between the naming of the vessels (as with my current FAC and the two subsequent cruisers). I don't generally link a later ship if there was no particular connection (for instance, with Dresden and Dresden) but I'd say that since this Poltava couldn't have her original name back because of the new Poltava, that's significant enough to warrant a link. You might simply change it to "given to the new dreadnought battleship Poltava so Tango was renamed..." That will also separate the links for dreadnought Poltava, which I know some people don't like. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Excellent idea, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Everything looks good to me now, great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Laundry Service[edit]

Nominator(s): WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Colombian record artist Shakira's fifth studio album and first English-language studio effort. A monumental point in her career and a highly successful album, I have worked on the article for quite a long time. It received an instant pass for good article, and a few users have recommended me to nominate it for FA. I hope the article is worthy enough. I will try to address issues as soon as they are put forward. Thanks! WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • One external link to correct.
  • Perhaps "Background" and "recording" could be merged into a "Background and recording" since the latter section is a little short.
  • I would recommend that "Music and lyrics" is renamed "Composition".
  • I suggest moving "Accolades" in between "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance".
  • Can you organize the "Personnel" section into two columns?
  • I would replace the couple instances of Nielsen Business Media in the references, since it appears that Prometheus Global Media is the most commonly-listed publisher for Billboard throughout the article.
The Nielsens were added by a bot. They weren't supposed to be there in the first place --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All of the hard work you've put into the article has certainly paid off! Aside from these minor structural/formatting comments, I have no other issues to raise, and I am very happy to give my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have addressed the issues. Much appreciated --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: WonderBoy1998. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose:I see you've put a lot of work into the article. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it's not quite up to FA standards. The writing is not quite brilliant or interesting and far from neutral. All these biased fancruft remarks like "huge success", "huge international success", "performed well", "became hits", "performed moderately". We must only document facts and appropriate critical commentary. I find too many of these throughout the article. Also, beware of awkward wording like "a few critics praised Shakira's vocal talent". Overall, I suggest hooking up with a third-party editor who can fine-tooth comb all the unintentional praises. Good luck and I'll keep watch for improvements.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 03:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have made some changes. However, I must say that I believe the usage of words like "crossover success" and "international success" is sufficiently backed by the charting information. Moreover, the former just doesn't refer to chart success but rather emphasises on the fact that the album enabled Shakira to enter the market successfully, which too is taken from the sources. Thanks for your input --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Morchella rufobrunnea[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Morchella rufobrunnea is a choice edible fungus, and one of the few morel species that has been successfully cultivated. The article is fairly short, but I think is comprehensive for a species that was "officially" described only in 1998. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

I love seeing your mushroom articles, and I'm happy to lend a hand reviewing this one. I normally focus on reference minutiae, but with how many of these you've written, I know I'd be in for a short review if that's all I did, so I'll aim for a more comprehensive one:

  • I know "new to science" is a term of art, and all, but it is probably jarring to the lay reader here, since it wasn't exactly discovered in 1998 so much as differentiated. Doubly so since the lead mentions a cultivation patent that was seemingly issued before anyone knew the mushroom existed! (Yes, obviously, that's not really how it worked, but it does rather read that way.)
  • Perhaps re-order the Taxonomy section likewise? Introduce the 1986 mentions of western deliciosa first, then walk through the sequence of establishing rufobrunnea in 1998 and moving the existing mushrooms over to the new name?
  • "North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa have since been divided into two distinct species, Morchella diminutiva and M. virginiana." Should that say "Other North American morels..." since rufobrunnea started its taxonomic voyage there also?
  • Any details on what form of molecular analysis was used? I feel like I'm being picky asking, but I know it's been included in several other mushroom FAs (and was specifically requested by someone during mine).
  • I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know your clades aren't consistently capitalized: Esculenta clade vs. Elata Clade. Later, you have "Blushing Clade" in caps, with quotes, and I'm not sure what the distinction is there, either.
  • Anything comment on what the black granules are? Or are they just a thing it does?
  • Link hyphae?
  • Link sclerotia under Description (instead of first linking it down in Cultivation)?
  • Anything describe characteristics that distinguish rufobrunnea from the (now) two other species that all used to be part of North American deliciosa for the Similar Species section?
  • Link pre-apothecia to something?
  • You give a development process with four steps, then one with five steps. I assume the difference is the conditions involved, but it makes the section less than clear overall.
  • References and reference formatting look pretty solid. Should the Stamets ref read "3rd ed." instead of "3 ed."? (I'm contractually obligated to find a nit to pick in reference formatting...).

Can't quite endorse promotion yet, but I have no doubts that the article will be there in short order. As always, nice work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn
  • "Its known range was extended a decade later when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States, and in 2009, when it was reported growing in Israel." How about "Its range was later found to be more widely spread, when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States a decade later, and when it was reported growing in Israel in 2009." Extending the "known range" seems a little clumsy.
  • For the length of the article (and aesthetically) I feel two paragraphs of lead would be best.
  • "a process to cultivate M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." How about "a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or "a process to cultivate morels, including the since-described M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or something similar?
  • "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, he determined" The study is the subject of the sentence, not Kuo. How about "In a 2008 study, Michael Kuo determined" or "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, it was determined"
  • So the name Morchella deliciosa is no longer used at all? It's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but has no article
  • "although most are typically found in the narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" Should be "although most are typically found in a narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" or "although most are typically found in the narrower range of 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)"
  • You don't link "sclerotia" at the first mention (though I'd recommend keeping it linked at the second
  • Not the end of the world if you don't have them, but do you have any information about differentiating this one from similar species in the US? M. deliciosa used by western American authors.[4] North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa (deliciosa? diminutiva? virginiana?) Was there anything about similar morels in the Israel paper?
  • US, USA or United States?
  • "Unlike the North American version that fruits for only a few weeks in the spring" This is contrary to what was said in the previous paragraph

Very strong article. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Images mostly good, but the source link on File:Morchella rufobrunnea 11174.jpg seems to be wrong. I'm also struck by what looks like atypical colouration on the lead image, but I'm happy to take your word if you're happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some quick comments on the sources (no spotchecks done)- You sometimes have 1 January 2000 (patents), sometimes 2000-01-01 (retrieval date). Sometimes you have "(PDF)" before the link, sometimes afterwards. Why do you italicise "California Fungi"? These are all real nitpicks, and it's possible no change is necessary. Otherwise, all sources look reliable and appropriately formatted. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both very much for your comments. I've already implemented some of the easier ones, and am pondering how to best action the others. Will post a full response soonish. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and comment Mostly of the usual high standard, but I have doubts about the grammar of A choice edible species, a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s. The first phrase is obviously intended to describe the fungus, but the subject of the sentence is "A process". I can't see anything else, so I'm supporting on the basis that that sentence will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Far Side Virtual[edit]

Nominator(s): Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Far Side Virtual is a strange album. It's experimental and outside the mainstream, but has received (and continues to receive) a glut of critical attention; it's alternately described as inconsequentially goofy or bleakly nihilistic, hinging on people's inability to tell if it's being performed with a straight face or not; and at the end of the day, it's just an album of songs that sound like replicas of circa-2004 MIDI ringtones. I worked on this article a lot last year, digging up a surprising amount about an album that I only had a little interest in. Looking at it again, I feel that the article is as comprehensive as an article about a recent album can be, and that I summarized a broad swath of critical opinions, analyses and interpretations. I think enough time has passed that we have some distance from the release date and I can confidently say that this is ready to be featured. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a few comments:
I can't speak for everyone but I was unfamiliar with the word drone before reading the lead. I'd suggest the full "drone music" instead.
Farraro's announcement of the album quote probably needs an explanation. Even something simple like saying that (if this is accurate) his press releases were part of his performance, or whatever would be the most accurate. But as it stands alone I don't think it works.
Is there any more information about the albums writing or recording?
I think that overall it needs much more background info other than just saying that it was made on Garage Band. There's a lot of great theory and interpretation but I think you should add much more information (if it is available) on the process and events surrounding its writing and recording. Obviously this isn't an album that was recorded in the traditional sense, and admittedly I don't personally know much about this type of thing. But I think that any other casual reader who is as unfamiliar as I am would also have some difficulty with aspects of the article that may seem overly obvious to people who know a lot about this genre of music.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A Cure for Pokeritis[edit]

Nominator: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead actors of this short, silent comedy film were among the first comedy film stars, although they are all but unknown today. This representative of their work was selected by the National Film Registry, and (now that I'm back from an unplanned Wikibreak), I'm happy to select it for Featured Article candidacy as well. I believe this is an especially comprehensive treatment of published sources. Most notably, silent films were not always meant to be silent. And with the help of the research library at UCLA, I was able to locate and include Vitagraph's original suggestions of the music to be played alongside screenings of the film. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • "domestic comedy silent film short": I'm pretty sure "comedy" at the very least is overlinking—also, it reads pretty awkwardly (try saying it out loud). How about just "is a short silent film" and call it a "domestic comedy" later in the paragraph when summarizing the plot?
    • Agreed. I wanted to say that I cribbed this ugly style from an existing film FA. But since I can't for the life of me find which article that was, I'm going to assume that it was a bad hallucination instead of an actual template for compelling prose. Fixed, I hope. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "with the announced alternative title A Sure Cure for Pokeritis": meaning the alternative title was announced but not used?
    • Tweaked this wording a little, because I agree it sounded awkward, but there's no good answer to your question. Vitagraph made a big deal out of these re-releases at the time (and there was some discussion in contemporary media about whether it was ethical to re-release films with a dead star), but I can't find any evidence one way or the other as to whether that actually happened. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "members of his Bible study group dress up as police officers": I wonder if either of these links are worth linking. Also, since they bump into each other, they appear as a single link.
    • Cut the police impersonation link; I feel that's a pretty self-evident concept. But Bible study groups are a concept that not all of our readers will necessarily be familiar with, I don't think. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Vitagraph's house organ published": since this is a silent film many readers might assume "house organ" refers to an accompanying musical instrument. Substitute something like "in-house publication"?
  • "for all of the studio's films, including A Cure for Pokeritis": you could safely drop "including A Cure for Pokeritis", since it's implied by "all".
  • "films were not generally archived": I might rearrange to "films generally were not archived"—I initally read this as having to do with "general archiving" (whatever that might be)
  • "range from over 150, to over 200, to over 260": I know you want to get that "200" ref in there, but "range from X to Y to Z" is pretty inelegant. Why not bundle the refs using the "For 150 see...For 200 see..." style?
    • I'm going to plead ignorance here. I'm normally not a fan of citation bundling, but I agree there's a case to be made for it here. Is there a sane, easy way to combine bundling that needs explanatory notes with shortened footnotes? I see that Template:sfn allows for additional comments via manipulation of the |ps field, and that Template:sfnm allows for bundled shortened references, but the |ps trick doesn't work there (allowing you to append stuff only to the actually end of the reference; there are no |nps fields). If not, perhaps I can simply reword this in a way that doesn't attempt a "from ... to ... to" construction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I need to rewrite this passage anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I restructured the paragraph entirely, hopefully for the better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I suppose another way of handling it is to offer a range, and then give the specific numbers and cites within an {{efn}}. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "This cinematography technique improved": is there really a good reason to have "cinematography" here (aside from a desire to link it)?
    • Because that's basically what makes it important. Many of the early silents were basically filmed theatrical performances. This is cinematography in the sense of the art of the motion picture medium, and it was a departure from the way this scene would have been staged on, well, a stage. I'm not sure if that's something I need to reword a bit to make clearer? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "or anthologies of specific songs to use as accompaniment"; "the first American comic film star": I'm pretty sure these links are overlinking.
    • Delinked. I considered fighting for the film star link, but if the consensus is that it's well enough understood, I'm not going to quibble. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "painting Sitting up with a Sick Friend": do we have a year (or general timeframe) for this painting?
    • Some time between 1903 (when they were commissioned) and 1910 (when Coolidge made a known 'sequel' to the series). A handful of Coolidge's works were known to have been painted in specific years, but this, to the best of my knowledge, isn't one of them. I suspect 1905 or 1906, but that's really well into the realm of original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • How about "early 20th century"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Considered that. But I used "20th century" again very shortly afterward. So I opted for the 1903 series date. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there no way to work "General Film Company" into the body of the text & boot that ugly citation out of the infobox?
  • "The full public domain film": sounds more like advertising than a caption.
    • Changed this caption to simply the title and year, modeling it after the FA The Sinking of the Lusitania. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I did the GA review and the article has only improved since then. Also, it's very nice to see you back Squeamish. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

File check[edit]

  • The three files are all properly tagged PD works. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for release date?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Cut the Murray source (from Adanai). The site appears to have a staff and editorial control, and I could make a claim that it would be reliable for its primary area of expertise. But film history is objectively not its area of expertise, and the cite was redundant to what Harris says -- and he's unquestionably a subject matter expert. I'm going to go out on a limb defending the Nash cite here. I don't think Three Movie Buffs is notable, but third party sources have a positive opinion of their reliability. Rotten Tomatoes includes them in its critic review score composites, and it was treated favorably as an example of citizen journalism in a 2007 Master's dissertation. That's ... not much to go on, I'll admit. I'd much rather be citing one of the more comprehensive treatments of homosexuality in silent era film. Unfortunately, with hundreds upon hundreds of silent films to choose from, all of the more reliable sources only name a select subset as examples, mostly features films and, sadly, never this short. From a non-Wikipedia-editor perspective, I can cite stock character descriptions that are obviously applicable to the character here, but from our perspective, making that claim in the article is novel synthesis. If the consensus is that this source is inadequate for the claim, I'll cut the section, but will do so with regret. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me go back over my notes for a cite for the date. I can trivially cite it to Silentera, but I want to say I have something better around here somewhere also. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Release date cited to Vitagraph Life Portrayals and included in prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, BUT with one reservation only if it applies. It looks like you have done some very impressive research for this article so I'd trust that all available information has been utilized. However I think that if there is any additional info on the actual production of the film it should be used. OR if there is any basic info about the Bunny/Finch films in general that could be used. For instance, did they follow a script? Did they just find a set and costumes and completely improvise the film? Did they often play the same types of characters and do those characters relate in any way to other films? When and where was it shot? Had they worked with any of the crew members before? I'm sure you know the material well from research but if anything additional can be added I think that it should be. But of course there's a lot of unknowns in very early film history so if none of this info is actually available this is a great article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I know nothing about the topic, but it read well, and I'm happy to support on prose. Also nice to review a non-Indonesian old film for a change (apologies to Crisco) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Bosbyshell[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about… Oliver Bosbyshell, a rather obscure figure in the history of the mint, but who also held some fame in his own lifetime for claiming to be the first person wounded in the Civil War. That rather seems to have fallen by the wayside, a local historian in Pennsylvania I consulted had never heard of Bosbyshell, and a book on the early days of the Civil War that has a play-by-play of the Baltimore Riot doesn't mention him in that context. Interesting character though. Early nom permitted by Ian Rose. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Medal caption shouldn't end in period
  • File:Bosbyshell_medal_crop.jpg: what is the licensing status of the medal itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Those things are done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco review

  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, this 15k article should not have 4 paragraphs of lead.
  • Lead doesn't mention his later life
  • Perhaps link Confederate and Union at first mention?
  • Bosbyshell's - His, perhaps?
  • Watch for an over-reliance on semi-colons; I spot three in the first three sentences and section title
  • he contracted bronchitis while fighting the fire which destroyed his warehouse, then died shortly after a sea voyage he had taken in hopes of improving his health. The elder Bosbyshell died in Philadelphia eight weeks before his son's birth, - I get the feeling that these could be merged together.
  • returned from Mississippi by land - is the fact that she returned by land worth mentioning?
  • With Pleasants now on General Robert B. Potter's staff, - no frame of reference for what "now" means
  • at Philadelphia in 1876. In 1879, he was elected as commander of Post 2 in Philadelphia. - any way to avoid repeating Philadelphia?
  • On October 17, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison commissioned Bosbyshell as superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. ... Bosbyshell filed his oath as Philadelphia Mint superintendent on November 1, 1889. - Any way to avoid repeating the name of the post twice in three sentences?
  • In 1890, Bosbyshell deposited $4,200 of federal funds in the Keystone National Bank, which then went bankrupt. Bosbyshell was responsible for the debt, which was only $300 less than his annual salary, and paid it off by stages, completing the payments in 1894. - can this be merged anywhere? It's really short
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise his Mint career was uneventful?
So far as I can tell from the refs. Mint records aren't the most complete and Bosbyshell's not well-studied.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Link Pennsylvania National Guard on first mention?
  • With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898, Bosbyshell organized and served as colonel of the Nineteenth Pennsylvania National Guard Regiment, which was used for homeland defense. He remained in that capacity from August 1898 until November, 1899. - anywhere this can be merged?
Not that I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • He had four sons with his wife Martha, who died in 1914; their eldest son Nathan died in Los Angeles in 1888 at age 23. - Merge this with the bit about Bosbyshell's death? I mean, his wife's death is not quite an "interest" as with the GAR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps discuss his role in various coins, such as the Isabella quarter? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I've put a bit in. I'm reluctant to go too far as just because a letter is from Bosbyshell, it may not have represented his views, the way the Mint was organized, you always went through your superior officer. With the quarter, it seems clearest.
Not sure. Generally it says "public schools" or "common schools". Most likely, from what you say. I think that's everything, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Yet another well done article! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Empress Matilda[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Empress Matilda, variously the Holy Roman Empress (or so she claimed!), and a contender for the throne of England in the 12th century. One of the few female war-time leaders of the medieval period, even at the end of her long life she was felt to still be a powerful personality, and clearly "of the stock of tyrants". I believe it captures the current academic literature on her life, and is now of featured article standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • By ODBN, I assume you mean ODNB? If so, why do you sometimes use that notation and other times include the full citation in footnotes?
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Be consistent in whether you use London, UK or just London
  • Bowling Green State or Bowling State Green? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki, should all be done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments by Johnbod I don't have time for more at the moment, but a read of the first few screens shows some fairly obvious missing links, & a few prose points, as well as historical issues over phrasing. Generally looks pretty good, but needs a polish. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now To be clear, I will resume reading the article after being told the polishing has happened, which it hasn't yet. Not yet at FA standard. Please don't ask for a list of "examples" (though there is one example below). That's the nominator's job, not the reviewer's. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - we're all volunteers here. I won't press you for any details John. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Support I supported this at the A class review, noting that it was "A well-written and thoroughly researched article". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick citation comment: Chibnall, Marjorie (2004–13), "Matilda [Matilda of England] (1102–1167), Empress, Consort of Heinrich V", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, retrieved 22 December 2013. is repeated over and over in various footnotes. Might it not be more advisable to move it into the bibliography and supply a shortened "Chibnall 2004–13" in those footnotes? As it is, it's the only full citation like that, and it just sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise tidy-looking list of footnotes. Imzadi 1979  05:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC) One more thing: "New York City" isn't the name of the largest city in the US. It's just New York, and traditionally in citations it does not need its state ("New York, NY") appended. Imzadi 1979  05:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi, NY fixed. The pattern used in the citations is for books, journal articles, etc. to be listed in the bibliography, and for web pages etc. to live as cite webs in the footnotes. Unusually, this article only has one web source, which is why it stands out - but it does follow the pattern used in many other "English medieval kings" biographical articles, and makes it easy for other editors to add in new webpages. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: I have three minor comments:

  1. In the "Death of Henry" section, we are told she "chose to return to Normandy" but then confusingly that she went "back to England" in the next sentence.
  2. In the "Disputes" section, "Normandy castles" might be easier to read as "castles in Normandy".
  3. Note 7 appears to be incomplete. It can probably either be cut completely since the timing is only implicit in the sentence anyway or expanded to explain who says what/when.

With regard to Johnbod's comment above, the prose distinguishing between the many Matildas and at least two Henrys might bear more polishing, but generally I had no trouble following the narrative or understanding the history so am happy to support. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • All done - thanks Kiernan. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so you don't think Investiture Controversy needs a link, for example? Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't pick fights where none exists. DrKiernan (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791[edit]

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's try this again. A major even in the history of Poland. Last nom stalled without a single support or oppose. Since then the article has been subject to another copyediting, because we can't have enough. It would be nice to see someone take some interest in this, this time... Ping primary contributors: @Nihil novi, Orczar, Logologist, Baffle gab1978, Ceoil, Gabbe, Crisco 1492: @Mathiasrex, Volunteer Marek, Malik Shabazz:. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Well, I'm back to FAC from an unexpected Wikibreak. This is far from my usual review topic, but might as well jump in, right? As my usual, sourcing and reference formatting are my main concerns:

  • Date formats need standardized throughout the referencing. I see mmm dd, yyyy; dd mmm yyyy; and dd-mm-yyyy.
    • @Squeamish Ossifrage: Where? I spend 10 minutes checking and I don't see any inconsistencies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • As it stands right now, most of the dates are mmm, dd yyyy. But see retrieval dates for: 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 33, 37, 41, 43 ... stopping here, all of which are dd mmm yyyy. Or vice versa, if you'd rather the default be the other way around. I think there was just the one dd-mm-yyyy and it died to a cull of a dubious source already. More responses tomorrow. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Print materials typically do not require retrieval dates. The idea is that web content is likely to change, but print is, well, print, even if mirrored online. I think someone in a previous FAC said you should do this though, so feel free to ignore me here. MOS-wise, it's probably up to editor preference.
  • Authors in the reference section should ideally only be linked at their first appearance.
  • Publication locations are optional, but they're all or nothing. I see Gierowski's work with a publication location, but not much (any?) else.
    • If they are optional, what's wrong with having them for some? Still, they provide no useful information; I removed all instances of that parameter being used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, this has merely been my understanding of FAC/MOS precedent. Sometimes I'm picky by design, sometimes I'm just the messenger. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Jacek Jędruch source (ref #5 at the moment) lacks an ISBN number. I believe it should be 978-0-8191-2508-8. But also...
    • There are references to Constitutions, elections, and legislatures of Poland, 1493–1977: a guide to their history, published in 1982 by University Press of America but also to the same title published in 1998 by EJJ books. I presume the latter is a second edition or update or something of that nature; regardless, if you're sourcing this material from physical copies, as is ideal, it would probably be preferable to avoid citing multiple editions of the same work, unless the source changes make that necessary.
    • Standardized; I used only one copy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow. This article cites two pages of George Sanford's work 26 times? His Wikipedia article isn't very informative as to whether that might represent undue weight. Regardless, I guess those are some information-dense pages?
    • I'd expect he provides a lot of useful facts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As I'm adding up all the various citations to Jacek Jędruch, it looks like you lean very heavily on him, as well. That's not necessarily an objection, just an inquiry to ensure that the literature here has been thoroughly surveyed.
  • The "Lietuvos TSR istorija" reference doesn't seem to be properly formatted, and so I can't make much sense of it. It's also pretty clearly in Lithuanian, which needs to be noted. This is the sort of source where an OCLC number is ideal (since there's presumably no ISBN assigned).
  • Not sure what's going on with the large untranslated quote in the Maria Konopka-Wichrowska reference. Hmm, actually, it looks like you're citing this source merely for its quote from Bogusława Leśnodorskiego. If so, can you cite Leśnodorskiego?
    • I translated the quote. The article doesn't cite its sources properly, and I cannot locate the (likely offline) work of BL that would presumably contained the quoted sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Google Books link to the Jeremy Black source is broken, at least for me.
  • Is the Carl Bucki source a reliable source? The site identifies it as the "[t]ext of a presentation made at the Polish Arts Club of Buffalo on the occasion of the celebrations of Poland's Constitution Day on May 3, 1996." And I don't see any particular qualifications for the speaker? I'm open to being convinced otherwise, though. In any case, he shouldn't be cited with the Hon(orable) prefix if the source is retained.
  • Is the publication date for Reddaway correct? I can't find anything that matches that entry. An OCLC identifier would be vastly preferable to Google's internal identifier, also.
  • The Machnikowski reference is missing his first name (it's Piotr).
  • Okay, I'm sorry for this, because template mismatching is one of those awful things that's no fun to pick on and a pain to fix, but the Rafał Kowalczyk and Łukasz Kamiński doesn't have the same templating as your other references. For example, the language tag is formatted entirely differently from the other non-English sources, and it has a comma after the author names instead of a period. There's probably another template available to help match styles, or else there's always the hard way of manual formatting.
  • The Kramnick reference is not formatted correctly. "Introduction" should be quoted rather than italicized, and you need to make some reference to the original publication date, even if you're working from the Penguin edition. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were certainly not submitting new work in 1987. Kramnick's introduction doesn't make him the author of the actual work there, either. And there are some other formatting problems with this entry, too.
  • And actually, it looks like there are a few more sources that use the same templating as the Kowalczyk and Kamiński entry. But that still doesn't match the rest.
  • Why is Polonia Music a reliable source?
  • The Carrington source gives the author in last, first order instead of the first last order used elsewhere. Looks like there's a stray character after the volume number, too.
    • Fixed.
      • I'm still showing that volume number as 88'. Is that intentional (I wouldn't think so, but I've seen weirder numbering schemes, so...)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed, I missed your prior comment on this.
  • On the Michalski source, I'm fairly certain that he's the author of the cited article, but not the entire work, which means we need more bibliographical information for the work itself (author or editor, specifically). Is this a reprint of an older source or an actual 2011 publication? If the latter, it almost certainly has an ISBN. If the former, again, an OCLC would be ideal, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what work you're citing here from the WorldCat entries.
    • Chapter title added. Here's the Worldcat entry: [56]. How to chose the correct ISBN? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me try to figure this one out. I'm seeing 2011 as the publication date just for volume 47, and 2002 (I think) for volume 41, and that's making it sort of challenging for me to determine what the right identifiers are here. I'll try to get back to you, but I don't suppose you've got this physically on hand to just look? I can hope, right? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Sadly, no. I only took scans of the pages with text, not of the title page. If it helps, the work is Polish Biographical Dictionary. Year 2002 for that volume is confirmed by their official page at [57]. The reason for multiple ISBN may be this: A new tome of PSB is first published over few years as a series of smaller issues, then collected into the big full volume. An educated guess would be that those ISBNs are the collected ISBNs for the issues plus the final collected volume one. I was using the collected volume, but I won't be able to check the book until summer time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not an extremely big fan of Further Reading sections. Especially when these have retrieval dates and basically look like they're just references that got cut from use. If they have something to say that's germane to the article, cite it. If not, why do we need them?
  • The Original Prints section is nonstandard. I'm entirely on board with supporting a link that lets readers see the original document in question, but that belongs in External Links, not a custom section.
  • The External Links need to be contextualized better. Some of these are pretty much bare links, and that's not okay. And at least a couple of them seem redundant to referenced works. Surely, with how much the article cites him already, Jacek Jędruch's work doesn't need to be an EL also?
    • EL cleanup done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Totally on board with that first EL, although I'd like to see less of the explanatory material in the blue text (and in a bit more readable prose). What makes polishconstitution.org important for the reader? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No prose review at this time. Most of the above bits are formatting tweaks and similar "light" work, but I'm frankly concerned that this just isn't a systematic review of the literature. A small number of sources provide an immense share of the referencing, and a cursory search revealed a substantial body of literature not addressed by the article, especially in scholarly journals. See: here (although you do cite Lukowski quite heavily already), here, here, here. The Hillar source is particularly one that I think warrants examination, at the least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    • I think that addresses most points. I'll review those sources, but I doubt they can add much than trivia. Is there any particular aspect you think we are lacking with regard to being comprehensive? We cannot cite each and every work on the subject, particularly when it is major enough to have spawned numerous books and articles on the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, obviously, a comprehensive review of literature doesn't mean "cite everything ever". But it does mean there's a need to ensure that the broadest range of reliable sources and positions are covered, and that authors' voices are given due weight. This article owes a lot to Sanford and Jędruch, and is fairly light on scholarly journal sources, despite there being quite a few available. That may or may not be an objection, and I haven't really had the time to look, but I'm merely raising it as a concern. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am reviewing the other sources added:

  • [58] mentions this constitution in a passing sentence and as such as irrelevant here;
  • Lukowski (2009) has been incorporated in those diffs: [59]. Most of what he discusses seems either already covered or too detailed, although I used his introduction to add a sentence on some major academic works on the topic. I will provide comments on the remaining two articles over the next few days.
  • Brzezinski provides some useful historical overview and was incorporated thus: [60]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Squeamish Ossifrage: Regarding the last article, [61], it's in The Polish Review, a publication that annoyingly (given my interests) is not available to either of the two academic institutions I've library accounts at. [62] and [63] also look worth reviewing. Fortunately, I should be able to read them through JSTOR free access soon (it allows access to 3 new articles every two weeks). Neither of my institutions have also the access to [64] which also could be worth reviewing and which doesn't have any free access options ( I'll ping User:DGG and User:Phoebe who may be able to obtain this article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: Unfortunately JSTOR free access doesn't seem to work for me anymore (I have the three articles added to my JSTOR shelf, but when I try to access them it shows me as logged out - I tried Firefox, Chrome and IE, no lucl). So unless someone can send me copies of those articles, I am afraid I am unable to review them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Piotr; I don't have access to the J. Baltic Studies article. Do you have access to interlibrary loan? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:RNieustająca.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • Information is presented in the image description. While it is possible a different source may provide more information, I do not believe it is require to conduct such a detective work here. It is clear the work is PD, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Stanisław_Staszic.PNG: since this is on Commons, you will need to include licensing from the source country as well as the US
  • File:May_constitution_pre20th_cent_book_cover.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Constitution_of_May_3_in_Lithuanian_language.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
  • File:Medal_commemorating_Constitution_of_May_3,_1791.png: what is the licensing status of the medal in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Great prose and grammar and well-written, high-quality style. I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. High time to recognize it for what it is, a Featured Article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- It was a fine article to begin with and now that the minor issues have been addressed it's even better. Great article! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Clackline Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Clackline Bridge, Western Australia's only bridge to have spanned both a waterway and railway. It is a heritage listed structure with a unique inclined curvilinear design, formerly carried Great Eastern Highway (my most recent FA), and recieved various upgrades and improvements since its construction in the 1930s. The article itself has been similarly upgraded and improved through a successful GA nomination, Peer Review comments, and copyediting [65], and I believe it meets the FA criteria. - Evad37 [talk] 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 03:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Support. This looks fine to me, with a high level of detail for a relatively minor structure. The one thing that I think would improve it would be a photograph showing some of the timber piers, since they seem to be a key to its heritage significance. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Reading through now. Will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The bridge was designed in 1934 to replace two dangerous rail crossings and a primitive water crossing. - "primitive"? do you mean "rudimentary"? (primitive makes me think of evolution...)
''The bridge underwent various improvement and maintenance works since then, - the since suggests a better tense would be "The bridge has undergone various improvement and maintenance works since then,"
:(23.6 in × 5.9 in) - surely you can say, "(23.6 × 5.9 in)" for this and the other similar?

Support on comprehensiveness and prose Otherwise looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

All done. To avoid {{convert}} repeating the "in" (unit), I had to change "×" to "by", but the meaning remains the same. - Evad37 [talk] 09:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thopha saccata[edit]

Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the world's loudest cicada - it ran through FAC before but generated little interest...we pondered about the prose so it has been through Peer Review, which has been very helpful (and thanks to those who commented there!). This has helped massage its prose alot and we feel it is at or near FA level. Let us know what we can do to improve it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I supported last time, and the article still looks good to me now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and comments. Nice article, two minor things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • and red-brown and black underparts— "and has"
  • while the former has black markings of the leading edge (costa) of the forewing extend past the basal cell—first "of" should be "on", methinks, and "extending"
fixed both - well spotted - thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support; mostly had my say at PR. I still feel that the poems are a weak point to finish on (perhaps you could hide them in the middle of the paragraph somehow?), but that's a stylistic disagreement. A couple of comments... J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found in dry sclerophyll forest, preferring to alight and feed on large eucalypts[13][14] with diameters over 20 cm and sparse foliage concentrated at a height between 10 and 25 m,[13] particularly rough-barked species,[10] apples (Angophora) and Tristania.[11]" The nymphs are feeding on roots, but what precisely are the adults feeding on? (I see you mention sap further down- this should be present elsewhere in the article!)
added general note - should be gone into much more detail at cicada Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So the eggs are laid in trees, but the nymphs live underground? Do they burrow down through the tree, or make a mad dash down the side?
the annoying thing is missing information compared with (say) bird articles. I have not seen it written how they get down unfortunately Got something! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Great stuff- that's plugged the gaps, for me. Delegates- Please note that my support is conditional on there being no source problems, as I have not looked in detail. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Inconsistent caption use of SE vs Southeast - suggest the latter
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Source link for File:Australia_Locator_Map.svg (the original source for the map) is dead.
Weird - the link seems to work ok now - see here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 30.4-mile Fishing Creek, the largest river in Columbia County, Pennsylvania north of the Susquehanna River. Since the previous FAC, the article has been copyedited by the GOCE, so that should take care of that issue. I have also (as I mentioned in the previous FAC) addressed most of the concerns raised in the first FAC (about a year ago). Well, thanks for commenting and I do hope this passes this time. --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just adding a quick drive-by comment about the lead -- I think the reader would benefit from seeing something about the Native Americans or the first permanent inhabitants near the creek, before jumping into the different industries. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Jakob (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from Mike Cline

The references to "Fishing Creek has a large population of brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout" is misleading and not supportable with sources. From sources I can find, Fishing Creek has a small wild (naturally reproducing) population of brook trout (native) in its headwaters and an even smaller population of wild brown trout (non-native) in the headwaters. Most of the river’s trout are "stocked" by either the PA Fish and Game Commission or the Fishing Creek Sportsman Association. The PA Fish and Game Commission identifies Fishing Creek as a "Stocked Stream" not a wild trout stream. The source for the statement: "An 1887 book described Fishing Creek and its tributaries as being 'alive with trout'." Needs a page number (226) and as written mis-characterizes the source some as the source actually says: "The Fishing Creeks and their numerous tributaries were literally alive with trout, if the stories of old residents may be credited." "Were" being the operative word here. By 1887, most of the native brook trout in the northeast were in serious decline and introduced brown and rainbow trout had probably not made serious inroads. I think it is important to identify and distinguish between wild native fish, wild introduced fish and purely stocked fish populations as well as commenting on the decline of native and wild populations.

Here’s a couple of sources to help you get started fixing this section.

[66], [67]

--Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: I have 1) removed the bit about the population being large, 2) added that the fish are stocked, and 3) fixed the "alive with trout" claim. I would also like to thank you for providing me the resources to fix this instead of just dumping comments on this page. --Jakob (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from Cullen28

I have concerns with the statement "Nomadic Native Americans reached the area near the mouth of Fishing Creek by 8000 B.C. By 3000 to 2000 B.C., some of them went into the Fishing Creek valley during the winter to hunt deer and bears, and returned to the Susquehanna River in the summer. Around this time, trade routes to the Fishing Creek area were created. The area was not permanently inhabited until 1000 B.C. when some Native American villages were built at the mouth of Fishing Creek." This seems to imply that there was something different about the Native American settlement of this particular creek as opposed to other similar creeks of the wider region. Do the research studies focus on Fishing Creek in the period 3000 to 2000 B.C. as opposed to other similar creeks? Or was the pattern of Native American hunting consistent throughout the wider area? I would like the article to justify any extraordinary claims, or not to make them if there is nothing unusual about the Native American usage of this particular creek. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Although I don't think it's really necessary, I've added a sentence explaining when Native Americans arrived in Pennsylvania for reference. --Jakob (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I have concerns about us of the book "Discovering Bloomsburg: A Bicentennial History" published by the Bloomsburg Bicentennial Commission according to Google Books, as a reliable source for academic details of Native American settlements of the area. There is no ISBN number nor even a cover image available on Google Books. Is this a promotional effort by local boosters, or is it a book published with the sort of professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking that we would expect? The reference now says that the publisher was "Haddon Craftsmen" which was located in Bloomsburg right near the mouth of Fishing Creek. My impression is that "Haddon Craftsmen" was a (now defunct) book printing company and not really a publisher. I would expect that all books used as references would have an ISBN number, unless the book was published before 1970. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328: The chapter being used was written by Deeanne Wymer, who is a professor in the relevant subject matter. That should clear up the reliable source issue. --Jakob (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Then her authorship should be reflected in the reference. Is William M Ballie the editor then? Please correct accordingly. Does the book have an ISBN number? Please clarify who is the actual publisher. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I've fixed the author/editor name and added what is (presumably) the actual publisher. There does not appear to be an ISBN though. --Jakob (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to promotion of this article to FA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Grus (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel I've done just about all I can to improve this article and reckon it's on par with some other constellation FAs. Have a read and let me know what else to fix..hopefully less stuff thanks to Stigmatella aurantiaca for a detailed GA review and some other copyediting eyes...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • None of the given captions should end in periods
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The usage conditions for File:From_Cosmic_Spare_Tyre_to_Ethereal_Blossom.tif seem to require in-caption attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual quality work, just a couple of minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • gave its stars Bayer designations in 1756, some of which had been previously consid-ered—"some" refers to the designations as written
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • and northern United States—"the"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • three times/3 times— inconsistent, both versions used
made all numbers as numbers everywhere in this bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Constellation Grus.jpg—pushes heading across, can easily be lowered a para to avoid this
nudged downwards Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
All looks good, supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Support Excellent work. Queries:

  • Is it normal to have a big row of question marks in the Meteor shower part of the infobox? Surely it is not unknown whether or not they occur in this part of the sky?
there are none - sometimes they get left as ???? fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The article has 'Keyser' in the lead, but Keyzer in 'Stars'. Which is it?
can be spelt either way but settled on 's' for this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "in their Malay and Madagascan vocabulary" - what??
the stars were recorded there for some reason. No idea why as there were no words in Malay or madagascan. I have removed it as it doesn't add to the understanding of the constellation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Alpha Gruis has an Arabic name (Alnair), while Gamma is Al Dhanab, but there's no mention of middle eastern constellations in the 'history' section. Any reason?
some stars of Grus were seen as part of Piscis Austrinus, which does have a classical history, until hived off to form a new constellation - do you think I should somehow highlight this or make more prominent? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what I had been getting at was that the Arabs, who were among history's most prominent astronomers, may have adopted different constellations, as well as different star names. But if this is anything to go by, they did not. So no problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular criteria that underpin the decision to make some galaxies redlinks, and others not?
hmm, not really. I don't recall de-redlinking them. Will re-redlink. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: The listed issues have been addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Please address the following:
  • The segment "astronomer Ian Ridpath has reported the symbolism likely came from him originally" is ambiguous and may cause some confusion.
changed "him" to "Plancius"...but now I have two "Plancius" in the one sentence... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "...close and fused into orbit facing one another": fused into orbit? Tidally-locked perhaps?
yup/changed - even a link - Tidal locking Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "...Two ultraluminous X-ray sources and one supernova have been observed in NGC 7424. SN 2001ig, one of the two supernovas within NGC 7424": is it one supernova or two?
one - no idea how that got there...removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In the references, all instances of "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian" for consistency.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a few copy-edit fixes to address the remainder of my concerns. Otherwise, it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011)[edit]

Nominator(s): starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a professional wrestling event by WWE held in 2011. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter rated it Event of the Year, while its main event match between CM Punk and John Cena won Match of the Year. I submitted this article as an FAC in January, but there weren't enough comments. I then submitted for peer review, but there were no comments at all. Hopefully this will receive more attention this time around. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Caelum[edit]

Nominator(s): StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

After the GA review and peer review of this article, in which I've been told that this article is both comprehensive and and understandable, I'm submitting this for an FA review. I also believe that it meets the FA criteria. It's rather short, but as I mentioned, people, including those who are passionate about the subject matter as seen at the peer review believe that it is comprehensive. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey[edit]

Feel free to disagree with anything I say—not all of it is necessary for FA.

  • Alt text would be nice for the images.
    • I think I've done this correctly...images are not my strong suit. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the Latin pronunciation of "Caelum" unacceptible in English?
  • it was formerly known as Caelum Scalptorium: former to de Lacaille's introduction?
    • Appears to be already in the "History" section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but what I'd meant was that it wasn't clear here that "Caelum Scalptorium" was the name de Lacaille gave it—it could be read as that it had that name before de Lacaille got to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • romanized to Caelum Scalptorium (The Engraver's Chisel): as a translation, should "The Engraver's Chisel" not be in quotes?
  • depicted the name as plural: can you "depict" a word as plural?
  • all have mostly fallen out of use: how can "all" have fallen "mostly" out of use?
  • further at a distance of: you could safely drop "a distance of"
  • so close that they share envelopes: Is there something good to link to here?
  • The other twelve naked-eye stars in Caelum are not referred to by Bode's Bayer designations anymore, including RV Caeli.: citation?
    • This is more a deduction based on the fact that there are no modern sources that I could find that refer to any of the other stars by their Bayer designations. If you think this strays too much into WP:OR territory, I can remove it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It does seem like OR to me, but let's see if anyone else objects. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Qian, S. -B.; Liu, L.; Zhu, L. -Y.; Dai, Z. -B.; Fernández Lajús, E.; Baume, G. L. (2012): what's with the hyphens? Are they supposed to be there?
Image check[edit]
  • Images are fine—either public domain or appropriately licenced. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Have tinkered with this constellation article a bit as it has been buffed by StringTheory11. Only slight query is a segment that has " consists of four stars, and 20 stars in total" - which should be changed to "4" and "20" or "four" and "twenty" I guess. Otherwise the prose has just the right amount of embellishment to make it flow nicely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've spelled "twenty" out now. Thanks for the support! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: it seems fine. Just one little issue: in the references, "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian" for consistency. Beta Caeli is actually listed as a main sequence star by NStars, but the discrepancy among the sources can be left for astronomers to sort out. Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I fixed the ref. Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support constellation was recognized as burin and an échoppe,[4] although it has come to be recognized simply as would benefit from tweaking to avoid the repetition of "recognised", but otherwise looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Changed to "shown as". Thanks! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Notes
    • I'd expect to see the last bit of the first para of Stars cited.
    • Has anyone done a source review for formatting/reliability? StringTheory, if no-one volunteers soon, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

99of9[edit]

  • I've made a minor edit wikilinking a list of the 88 modern constellations.
  • "NGC 1679, a barred spiral galaxy with a spectrum containing emission lines." I would have thought most galaxies would have emission lines. The cited source doesn't give much context. Maybe this one has more than usual and thus contains hot ISM? --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Source review
  1. FN 1 Location?
  2. FN 3 + 4 Access date? Publisher?
  3. FN 5 Why is VA linked? If we want to link the location (and I cannot imagine why) wouldn't it be better to link Blacksburg, Virginia.
  4. Compare FN 14, 15 and 17

Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jakec[edit]

It looks like a decent article overall (though maybe it could go into more depth about the historical significance of it). I've made a few tweaks here and there while looking over it. All the references are reliable, as they are written by experts in the field or are located in reputable databases. The content cited to Reference 2 does not appear in Reference 2 and some of the content cited to Reference 6 a does not appear in ref 6. Reference 17 also appears to be about the wrong star. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Caelum#Stars is unreferenced. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 13:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Ref 17 fixed. I'll get to the others as soon as I get a chance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Eisner's first book-length comic book wasn't the first to use the term "graphic novel", but it has been credited with popularizing the term. The book is a cycle of four stories set mostly in a tenement building in New York City in the 1930s, and was an early English-level attempt to raise the maturity and art levels of the content of the medium. A Contract with God is no Maus, but was an important stepping stone in the comics medium's history in the Anglosphere. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Generally not necessary to include (pictured) in captions, where it's clear what is being pictured
  • If File:Contract_w_God_excerpt_page_18.jpg and File:A_Contract_With_God_page_116.png have the same purpose of use, it's difficult to justify having both. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed "(pictured)" and File:Contract_w_God_excerpt_page_18.jpg. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: - images need more specificity...Modernist (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The image depicting tenements in the Bronx - is not the Bronx but Manhattan...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Would it be acceptable if "in the Bronx" were dropped from the caption (or changes, say, to "New York City")? Or are you aware of a free image in the Bronx? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • - The image depicting the Catskills is the Catskills but the 'Jewish Alps' referred to in the article tends to refer to Sullivan County, New York - while the image used seems to be a view from Greene County, New York
    • Dropped the image. Are you aware of a more appropriate one to use? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Done, added an image in Sullivan County and an image of tenements in the Bronx...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments read through it today on my phone - a nice read. Will jot some queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Sexual content is prominent in the stories, though not in the gratuitous manner of underground comix, which celebrated a hedonistic lifestyle. In Contract, the sex is not so much erotic as disturbing, its characters frustrated or filled with guilt - this comes across as an opinion (not in itself a bad thing) but maybe better to add who said it and clarify that it is their observation/opinion.
Well, it's cited to two different sources. I'd like to provide more context to the statement, but it would likely fall under OR—basically, sexual (or other grown-up) content was taboo in American comics (especially under the Comics Code Authority). Underground comix was pretty much all about breaking taboos, and they took it to extremes. So you had the reserved extremes of the mainstream versus the gratuitous extremes of the undergrounds, and Eisner's treatment of sexuality (neither avoiding nor flaunting it) more or less stood alone in 1978. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Benny tries to rape Goldie - seems pretty extreme just dropped in there....can some more story/context be provided?
I'm not sure there's much more to it than is stated—Benny thought he would get himself a rich wife, and when he discovered she was as poor as he was, he took out his frustration on her in a noble, manly way. Actually, there is an error (that I've now corrected): he didn't just "try to" rape her, he raped her (although it's later revealed that he was unable to penetrate, I don't think there's a definition of rape that this wouldn't fall under). I suppose it is extreme and sudden, but that is pretty much how it was in the story—Goldie tells Benny she's poor, and the next thing you know he's taking off his shirt and tears all her clothes to ribbons with one yank (I'm sure this is compression of action or something, but I'd call it less than deftly handled on Eisner's part). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
How about "sexually assaults" then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I'm still mulling this over. Some "sexually assaulted" almost seems to dance around what Benny did—"sexual assault" covers a broad range of activities, including those that are far less egregious than what Benny did. If someone else chimes in preferring "sexually assaulted", I won't oppose, but for now I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Happy to pause on this one or wait for other opinions on consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok - looking at the segment of text at Duncan p. 147 - I think some more word substitution to distance from the source/paraphrasing would be a good thing (agree this looks tricky as I have tried thinking of some synonyms) - e.g. "cutter" I have no idea what occupation that is, surely there is a better contemporary word (?). Am trying to think of a synonym for "snub" too ..."rebuff"?
Changed "snubbed" to "Herbie, an intern Goldie had earlier turned down".
Benny works for "Pinkus Furs"—I guess he cuts furs? There aren't a lot of clues in the story. He's shown at work, but he's not working—he's putting on a necktie getting ready for vacation, as a "Mr Cohen" tells the phone operator "Tell Pinkus we can't' ship today—Benny, our cutter is goin' on vacation!" I suppose I could cahnge it to "a cutter in a fur factory" or something, but I'm not sure it's even a factory ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I would add the factory as on its own the word is archaic to the point I guessed what it meant but never heard/seen it used. Agree I can't see any other synonym for cutter.
The thing is, I can't even be sure it's a factory. It's only shown briefly as a dark room—the panel's mostly black—and it's not clear at all what's going on in there (to me, anyways). There appear to be a couple of furs (I assume) on a table in front of one character, and apparently Benny is the only cutter (does this mean it's a small operation, or is there typically only one cutter? I have no idea). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, the para on sex, Duncan put the disturbing rather than erotic in quotes (I guess) because the contrast between the two was specifically made by Lambert, so I am uneasy about generalising it here - almost all these comments are observations/evaluations made by the author of the chapter, so I think some should be attributed - the explanation of Eisner's background is interesting here too and might be worth adding (and that can be attributed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
annoyingly, Lambert seems not to be listed as a reference :P ...I think it is this - be good to look up...and its on google books Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Got it, and attributed to Lambert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't think Eisner's background was good to go in here too? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, which part of his background do you mean? I'm not seeing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
(sorry re delay) the second last para pn p. 147 of Duncan - "He was an artist pushing the boundaries of the comic book form, yet he was a conservative middle-aged businessman" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I see. That's good to add, and now I've done so. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, otherwise happy with prose and have checked that stories do not paraphrase Duncan text. Leaning support pending discussion of above (not sure if above essential) and others coming along and taking a look and being happy with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

SMS Emden (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The centenary of the sinking of this famous commerce-raiding cruiser (9 November 1914) is rapidly approaching, and I'd like to have the article run on the main page that day - I have a short list of such articles, but this being the most famous (and chronologically first) ship in the group, I figured it ought to go first to FAC as well. I wrote this article in October last year, and it passed an A-class review at MILHIST a couple of weeks ago; it is also a part of the largest GT on Wikipedia (and the first in that series to come to FAC). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, I look forward to working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Jose: Given OCLC number appears to be for 10th edition, not ninth
    • I wonder if that's an error on Worldcat's end. It says the 10th edition, published in 1941, whereas the awm.gov.au page states that the 9th edition was published that year; highly unlikely they published two editions in the same year. This one is more likely the 10th edition.
  • Check order of Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment As a bit of a drive by comment, I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't note the disposition of surviving elements of Emden. One of her guns is mounted on the corner of a major intersection in Sydney, another forms part of a display on her final battle in the Australian War Memorial (complete with a rather odd sound and light show in which it occasionally "fights" a preserved gun from HMAS Sydney!), and I imagine that the AWM and Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre have additional bits of the ship in their collections. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I've added info on the three guns that were recovered, along with the bell, stern ornament, and various artifacts in the AWM collection - the RANHC doesn't have as helpful a website, and I haven't managed to find anything there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • I've added a much more plausible account of Emden's encounter with Glen Turret at Penang from Corbett.
    • Thanks for that.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • No DABs and no duplicate links.
  • Hyphenate 97 ton as a compound adjective.
    • Fixed.
  • Do we have any information on how many times Sydney hit Emden, or even ammunition expenditure?
    • Nothing I've seen - I'd wager no one bothered counting since she was pretty well swiss cheese by the time Sydney was done with her.
  • Link run aground.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Added. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments by Coemgenus:

  • Is there any particular reason she was named Emden? Explaining that Emden is a town, at least, might be of interest to readers.
    • Starting with the Bremen-class cruisers, all German light cruisers were named after towns - at some point, I'll need to create a German counterpart for United States ship naming conventions, since the reasoning behind some of the choices are fairly interesting (for instance, in the late 1890s, Kaiser Bill mandated that capital ships be named after the German states - and especially the land-locked ones - to drum up support for the Navy in a traditionally Army-dominated society). In any event, I added mention of the connection to the lead.
  • When you say "Ostamerikanischen station," does that mean there was a substantial German naval presence in the Americas? If so, where were they based?
    • Yes, there was a reasonably substantial German presence in the Americas (for instance, a few cruisers and a couple of gunboats joined the British in the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–03. I don't know where they were based for sure though - typically the German squadrons operated out of European ports (usually British, since they were the best-developed) in an area where no German base was available (for instance, before the Kiaotschou concession was seized, German ships in Chinese waters usually operated out of British Hong Kong, and in German East Africa, cruisers frequently overhauled in Capetown or Bombay before the floating drydock arrived in Dar es Salaam).
  • A link and brief explanation of the Kiautschou Bay concession might help the reader understand why German ships were based out of Tsingtao.
    • Added a link to the lead and a short line in the body explaining the seizure of the concession.
  • Throughout, you use the phrase "decided to" a lot. Sometimes it's appropriate, but often the action that's really of interest is what the captain did, not what he decided to do.
  • Where did Ayesha come from?
    • She was just moored at Direction Island - no idea where or even when she was built, apart from that she was ancient and barely seaworthy.
  • That's all for now, I'll take a second run at it later. Very nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Coemgenus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Nigel Ish
According to "Narrative of the Proceedings of H.M.A.S. Sydney" in the Naval Review (magazine), 1915, Issue 2, pp. 448–459 [68], Sydney fired 670 rounds, claiming an estimated 100 hits.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much Nigel, I've added it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, typical great work from Parsecboy. Have you asked Saberwyn to check this over? I believe he wrote the HMAS Sydney article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sega CD[edit]

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This article had a previous FAC which received little feedback and was archived. Instead of going for an instant re-nomination, I opted to work on and bring Sega 32X through FAC instead. It's been a little while, but I've put some more effort into this article since then, including doing some more minor buffs and adding a bit of polish to really make this article shine. It's also a part of the WP:FTC nomination of Sega Genesis as a featured topic, along with czar's ongoing nomination of Menacer. It's good to go and ready for another run at FAC, and as always I welcome all of the feedback I get during this process. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Red Phoenix. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Close. Very close.

  • "Reasons for the Sega CD's limited sales include the add-on's high price, lack of significant enhancement to the Genesis console, and lack of ability to function without a console attached." - Carries a slight air of non-neutrality. I'd switch this to a "Writers have cited numerous reasons for the Sega CD's limited sales, such as..."
    • I've actually decided to rework this into Reception, where I feel it fits better anyway. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "as well as the controversial Night Trap, which resulted in Congressional hearings on video game violence." - The second clause isn't really necessary, as this has been covered extensively earlier.
  • "Four separate reviews scored the add-on 8, 9, 8, and 8 out of 10, citing the upgrades it provides to the Genesis and a few select titles, but noted anticipation of upcoming titles for the system" - Slightly awkward wording. How about "Four separate reviews scored the add-on 8, 9, 8, and 8 out of 10; reviewers cited its upgrades to the Genesis as well as its its high-quality and expanding library of games."
  • "Retrospective reception of the Sega CD is mixed, though it has often been criticized for not offering enough to gamers to justify its steep cost." - How is it being criticized for this a contradiction of its reception being mixed? I'd split this part off into a new sentence with no "though" - either that or mention the CD's well-received, albeit limited, library of titles in the same breath. "Mixed" is accurate, I'd say, but stick with isosceles weighting.
  • I feel like the Night Trap section might be a little detailed given the low attention paid to the Sega CD itself there.
  • "It was unveiled to the public for the first time at the 1991 Tokyo Toy Show, to positive reception" - Can you elaborate a little?
    • Added "from critics". The source isn't really much more specific than that. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The specified limit on time spent seeking the heads versus playing a track was 5 per cent. Some of our video-based titles were running around 90 per cent." - A little unclear. Can you paraphrase this, adding some non-technical context?
  • I realize this is an important piece of information that one wouldn't want to jettison, but is Man!ac Magazine a reliable source?
    • Absolutely. Man!ac, now known as M! Games, is a leading video game publication in Germany, published by Cybermedia Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Its use here is no different than the use of an old issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly or a comparable American magazine from 1995. Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sega CD attached to a Sega Genesis" - The lettering isn't quite visible at current resolution, which isn't a problem, but which suggests that you should specify which part of this contraption is the Sega CD. I'm not familiar with the Genesis, as my first home console was a GameCube and I didn't get into Sonic until the early 2000s, and the average reader may also not be. How about "Sega CD (on right) ..."?

Tezero (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support; the article looks good to me now. The German publication really should be listed at WP:VG/RS, though, as sometimes that's all I have to go by. Tezero (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:VG/RS isn't an all-inclusive list, but I'm sure if more articles use it, it may come up for discussion there. I've been pushing to get Sega-16 on there selectively for its interviews and postings by established video game journalist Ken Horowitz and just haven't gotten it done yet. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a nice overview that hits all the salient points regarding the addon as thoroughly as current English-language sources allow. I took the liberty of tweaking the language a bit to improve flow in a couple of places, but overall the writing is solid. I hope this gets enough feedback this time to achieve promotion. Indrian (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I hope it does this time too. It'll complete the "Genesis trifecta", as I doubt Nomad, Meganet, or Channel will ever make it here due to lack of sufficient sources and things to say about them. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • We should not let personal feelings like those blockade the effort of bringing them here to see what we can't just maybe accomplish despite those things.--SexyKick 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, realistically, since those aren't going to be viewed as much as the others, we shouldn't take it as a given that they need to be FAs. (There are already more than enough for this to qualify as an FT, for what that's worth, anyway.) Tezero (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll do the images review for this, and a random source check during the next few days.--SexyKick 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Review from czar[edit]

In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar  00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This review is long overdue. I'm sorry for not catching it during its last FAC.

As much as possible, please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • Could save a few syllables by flipping "in Japan on December 12, 1991, in North America on October 15, 1992 ..." to "on December ... in Japan, October ... in North America, ..."
  • Avoid "seasons" such as "spring"
  • "Utilize" can almost always be "use", same for "allowed" to "let", "put", etc., "employ" → "use" or nothing at all
  • "allowed for larger games" clarify
  • I began to go this route, but make a connection between "larger games", "realism", and "Night Trap"—how one enabled the other (in the lede). If you need a source, see my edits on the Videogame Rating Council
  • "While it became known for several games such as Sonic the Hedgehog CD and Lunar: Eternal Blue" What is "it"? Sega CD? Because the games were anticipated or because the games sold and made it famous? cl (Also that sentence construction doesn't make much sense starting with "while")
  • "it was announced that Sega's support" by whom? Sega? If so, say so
  • What is "value for money"? Replay value? Lasting value of the console? Collector's value? Return on investment? cl
  • Try to avoid "-ing" (gerund) constructions at almost all costs—they were overused in the lede. The sentences you'll make will be tighter

Development

  • Way too much crammed into this first sentence: "Released in Japan as the Mega Drive in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe ..." Keep a strong topic sentence for important ¶s
  • "Shortly after the release of the Mega Drive": is this to say the Japanese Genesis release? If so, say so
  • Likewise, clarify what's going on with Super Famicom/Super Nintendo names
  • "TurboGrafx-CD|PC Engine CD": why the latter instead of the former?
  • "that combined CD audio with visual graphics": what combined? the CD+G? the player? also this phrase can be clarified

Good work. I think the prose is capable of being better. See my review and compare my copyedit diff to see the recurring stuff I'm finding. I recommend reading the text out loud (maybe with every sentence twice) and asking whether every word is essential. That's one of the best ways to make the text tighter. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll continue and do a source review. I can also discontinue the review, if you prefer. I'm also looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar  00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: I apologize for the slow response; I've been sick the last couple of days and took a short wikibreak as a result. In response to your points:
  • I went ahead and did your suggested flips and removed the season.
  • Clarified larger games, and removed "realism" as it's not well referenced in the article or in the sources.
  • Clarified the add-on being known for its games as being well-received.
  • Someone already got the Sega's support comment.
  • Removed value for money altogether and substituted criticism of the add-on's high price. I'm not sure how to better word it without going into a longer explanation of how it was quite expensive and didn't have enough good games to warrant spending $299 on top of a Genesis, which is the value for money criticism.
  • Someone already got the "Released in Japan..." sentence.
  • I went ahead and fixed the "Shortly after the release of the Mega Drive" and the Super Famicom thing. I had thought that paragraph had been region-specific; it turns out it was not, and neither is the source, really.
  • I pulled the last phrase about CD+G - anyone interested in the standard can click the resulting link to learn more about it.
A couple of other quick notes:
  • PC Engine CD is used because the "TurboGrafx-CD" isn't the console being referred to. That wasn't released until 1990, long after the time period we're referring to. The source is specifically referring to the Japanese variant, which was released in 1988, and the sourcing article itself is from 1989. So, in this case this is a region-specific usage; I'll make sure to slip the Japan part in there.
  • On the topic of prose and reading it over: I'm not exactly of the Ernest Hemingway school of writing. I often find repetitively using the same word over and over (i.e. "use") to make for dull and unengaging prose, and tend to use varied sentence structures (including gerunds) in order to increase sentence fluency, as I do in my own writing. When I read these things over, I don't see it quite the same way and it reads fine to me, and that makes it quite a bit more difficult for me to review it for minimalistic prose. I'm not saying I'm a fantastic writer; only that your recommendation here sort of goes over my head of what I'm capable of completing on my own. Red Phoenix let's talk... 13:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Infinity Blade[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In Summer 2010, Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone, and Epic Games wanted to show that their upcoming iOS version of the Unreal Engine wasn't just good for tech demos- so they told a 12-person company they had just bought to make a game for a system they'd never developed for with an engine that wasn't finished yet, and to have a demo ready in 2 months and the game done in 5. No pressure! Presenting for your consideration Infinity Blade - if you saw an Apple advertisement in late 2010/early 2011 with a 3D game, it was this one, the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game that involved no birds at all, no matter their emotions. Passed as a GA by J Milburn in 2012, despite his FAC recommendation I hadn't touched it since until Hahc21 mentioned that we could take it to FAC together; I couldn't wait for him to be free once I realized that the article was a lot better than I remembered. I've rewritten/polished the entire article in the past couple weeks, so now the sentences are grammatically correct, the images are rationale'd, the links are archived, and everything should be ship-shape for what will hopefully be a double-first: the first FA about an iPhone game and my first FA that is neither an indie game nor a Final Fantasy game. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comments From "A version of..." onwards, the lead basically becomes an iteration of "On X date, Y product was released." Why don't you instead say what you've said so lucidly here, "Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone . . . the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game"?

The Legacy section should probably be renamed Sequels. Something's legacy is the influence it had, and how it is remembered; in this case, it is that Infinity Blade paved the way by proving that high-end iOS games could make truckloads of cash.—indopug (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if that's a well-documented statement about it, Infinity Blade's article should include something about its recognized influence. That's necessary for completeness at an FA level. Tezero (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not in the article because it's completely OR. If it was a well-documented statement then of course it would be in the article. I was just trying to make the nomination statement interesting. --PresN 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: PresN. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar[edit]

In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar  15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Review archived to the talk page czar  00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded inline to Czar's comments; I'll give your article a review when I get a chance, though I might review some VG articles that are lower down the page first. --PresN 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The prose has a lot of "comma and" I edited a few into two sentences—not sure who is responsible for this, but wanted to point it out for future awareness
  • It was me, I like commas
I like commas too. Murder your darlings.
  • Consider splitting the gameplay and repetition parts into separate ¶ to avoid redundancy
  • It's only two sentences so I'd rather not; what do you see as redundant?
It's fine, but I meant a split in the last Reception ¶ so one would address gameplay and one would address redundancy, as they're separate ideas
  • I don't see why the novellas need to be named in the lede—they're garnish (not imperative to understanding the article)

Support on prose. I'm really contented with how the prose turned out. I need to move on to other things but ping me if you ever need an image review or source spot check (on this FAC or others) and I'll help out. And if anyone is interested, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC. czar  00:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn[edit]

Glad to see this article made it to FAC!

  • "In the game, the player fights a series of one-on-one battles and journeys through a derelict castle in a fantasy world in order to fight the immortal God King." The player controls a character who does this. Perhaps you could also use this sentence to say who the character is?
  • "show off" is a little colloquial
  • In the lead, could we have a link for Unreal Engine?
  • Already linked in second sentence.
  • "It made US$1.6 million in four days and over US$23 million by the end of 2011." There's a tense switch here- perhaps you could go for "In the four days following its release, the game made US$1.6 million, and it had made over US$23 million by the end of 2011." My way's still not quite right- perhaps you could work something out?
  • "It was reviewed favorably by gaming critics. Reviews heavily praised the graphics, comparing the game favorably" Very repetitive
  • Is Infinity Blade: Redemption worth a redlink?
  • "as the player travels" Player character, not player
  • "Players can use two special abilities located at the top of the screen." The ability isn't at the top of the screen- presumably, you mean the abilities are activated by pressing a button at the top of the screen
  • You should probably link to Role-playing video game, rather than role-playing game
  • "The player is then given the option of either starting the next bloodline, or resetting the game and losing all gold and items, but maintaining their experience level, letting the player remaster the items and level up even further." I'm not sure I follow
  • "This expansion also added new equipment, enemies, and a new ending to the game where the player-character defeats an ancestor of his" Is this what you have already discussed?
  • "code libraries' lack of support" There are multiple code libraries?
  • "The five-month development was completed by a team of twelve people" As there's only 12, perhaps you could list them?
  • "an uncommon game based" Type of game? Style of gameplay? Something like that?
  • "and Nick Chester of Destructoid said that although the combat wasn't very complicated, it was fun to play." Is this a direct quote? There are no quote marks. If it's indirect, you shouldn't be using contractions
  • "The other role-playing game elements" Other?
  • "Destructoid called them "satisfying" and IGN said that they added to the game's difficulty. Eurogamer, however" Avoid personification (there are more later)
  • I switched to this because the review above said that just saying "Brown said blah" got confusing keeping track of who was who; what would you recommend?
  • Personally, I like it the "Brown said" way. I suppose you could go for "Destructoid's Brown said" or perhaps "Brown (Destructoid) said". J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "addicting" isn't a real word. Perhaps consider making it an indirect quote, and use addictive?
  • Sorry, tongue was in cheek. I agree it's generally accepted (in US English at least), but I think a lot of people (with good reason) don't consider it particularly good form. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • How about "Sequels and spin-offs" for the section title?
  • "Like its predecessor, a novella by Brandon Sanderson set between Infinity Blade II and III, Infinity Blade: Redemption, was released on September 9, 2013." Instead of "Like its predecessor", how about "As before"?

Very nice looking article. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  • All done; comments more substantive than "done" inline. (notification) Thanks for reviewing! (again) --PresN
  • The article's looking great- I'll be happy to support (pending the source check) apart from the hanging personification issue- I'll hold off for now and see where we end up. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Switched them all to "Destructoid's Brown" and "Brown of Eurogamer" and "Brown's review for Pocket Gamer", etc. (ping) --PresN 23:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, providing the source/image checks come back OK. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I was supposed to co-work and co-nom this but Flotilla got in the middle. However, I think that this article satisfies the FA criteria. → Call me Hahc21 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - There should be some comment on the game's financial performance.[69] Not sure if you can work this into the reception, but Kill Screen's review of the game is the best I've read. - hahnchen 23:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's about the series as a whole instead of just this game, though at the time the series was just the first two games, but added the "most profitable series" bit; the sales numbers were already in the article. I threw in the Kill Screen review, since I liked it, but I couldn't do much with it; while certainly clever, it doesn't actually say much new about the game itself- we already have 8 reviews that mention that the game is cyclical, with small, evolutionary changes between each bloodline. Its draw is that the "feel" of the review is similar to the "feel" of the game; that's not really paraphraseable in a review section of an encyclopedia article. You should try to get the magazine/website added to WP:VG/RS, though. --PresN 01:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Czar and Hahnchen - Czar, are you satisfied with the responses to your review? Hahnchen, are you willing to do a full review or support/oppose the nomination? --PresN 02:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded above czar  00:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; no significant problems. I might prefer a bit more coverage of Awakening and Dungeons, but regardless, I feel that this is satisfactory for the FA criteria. Tezero (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1924 film Greed. It has been nominated twice before and got some great feedback. Alot of the unfinish feedback from the last nomination has been addressed, but I would like fresh suggestions before I or anyone else goes forward. Also, please give me more than four days between an oppose and closing the nomination.Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Laser brain was spot-on in his review during the last FAC, "the article is very good but needs some work on fit and finish".:

  • There are several awkward constructions. For eg, the word use is awkwardly employed to describe the director's stylistic choices: "von Stroheim used this ... von Stroheim used that".
  • The word film is overused, often several times in the same sentence. Replace some of these with "Greed" or "it".
I think this is taken care of. let me know if you think it needs more.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When you have time go through the writing tutorials at this page, especially the redundancy-removal exercises. Eg: "Robert E. Sherwood also defended MGM's cutting of the film" and "The studio ordered June Mathis to cut it down further;[95] she assigned the job to an editor named Joseph Farnham, Farnham was a well-known "titles editor" who patched scenes together using title cards to keep continuity."
  • Cast: is this section necessary? There's also the Casting section, and you could just mention the relevant actor names in brackets after the characters in the Plot summary. Also, it isn't really Wikipedia's job to mention every last bit-part role and actor.
I'm looking through some FA film articles. Some have simple cast lists, others don't and include the cast in paragraph form. Personally I don't see what's wrong with the cast list, and I'm not totally sure what the official standards are.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Box office: the two-decimal-place dollar figures are far too detailed. In fact you could round it off to the nearest thousand to improve readability.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Myths and misconceptions: I don't think you should compile the myths surrounding the movie into one big section like this. Better would be a section/subsection for the different (real and mythic) versions of the films. Probably under the Release section. The Turner stuff from Legacy also belongs there. Further, von Stroheim's adaptation of McTeague and June Mathis's undeserved writing credit is neither myth nor misconception. The former belongs somewhere in Production, and the latter with the rest of Mathis's involvement in the Editing section. The sam
I just completely disagree.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Legacy: this is really the only disappointing section in a excellent article. It has a list of several directors and films influenced by this film, but it doesn't say why it was so great. Or how it inspired these filmmakers. Also, we know that initial reception was poor, when and why did later critics change their mind? ("by the 1950s it began to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made" is not really expanded upon) What exactly did retrospective reviewers, such as Ebert (and Kael, Siskel, Maltin etc?), say about the film?
There's a lot of stuff already in the article about how innovative Greed was—the use of deep focus 17 years before Kane comes to mind—that could be compiled here to make a strong case for how seminal it was.
  • References: you don't need a ref at the end of every sentence. You can often club them like this or also as recommended by WP:CITEBUNDLE.

That's it for me for now.—indopug (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I can work on some of these by this weekend. I strongly disagree with your comment on the Myths and Misconceptions section. One of the most notable aspects of Greed is the mystery of its lost footage. I can search for some more comtemporary (as in from the 1950s and 1960s) reviews. That's a great idea. But I'll work on this in a few days. Thanks for the comments.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll continue working on this through the week, I just need more time.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to go over it very carefully tonight and add a Copy Edit tommorrow. I think that the legacy section is improved now. After I add the CE tommorrow I would love some feedback about the progress so far.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments I'm only about halfway through, to the "Themes" section.
  • There are few things in articles about artistic works that I appreciate more than proper background that runs a little before the creation of the work itself, because it anchors the reader in context about the artist. However, parts of the "Background and writing" leave me wondering what would be left to expand in von Stroheim's own biographical article. I'm thinking in particular of the extensive detail about his transferring studios. I feel that parts of the first three paragraphs could be condensed into one or two, although the full writing could be preserved on von Stroheim's own page.
  • I agree with you that separate casting and cast sections are fine. The text with full historical information has a different value than a systematic list, and different readers would have different purposes and could jump to either section depending on their interest.
  • I think certain sentences could be condensed or split for clarity. I would double-check for sentences that use semi-colons, passive voice or lots of dependent clauses because they can become difficult to follow. I don't have time right now to comb for these examples, but I may be able to perform a more thorough copyedit if you'd like. To take one example:
  • "Another point where von Stroheim conceded his initial vision came during shooting of the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler; there, the director's desire for authenticity in having a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt, and so a special-effect shot was used instead."
  • Could become...:
  • Von Stroheim also conceded his original vision when shooting the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler. The director insisted on authenticity, and wanted to have a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head. Von Stroheim was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt. A special-effect shot was used instead.
  • "He later said that he considered it the best role of his career." This sentence is ambiguous in its positioning within the paragraph and content, it needs a little more. Was the actor saying that the filming was fun? That the role was worthwhile despite the struggle? That the final result was excellent and/or he was proud of his performance? That he felt that von Stroheim's unconventional artistic direction was a fascinating experience?
  • The use of "feet" and "reels" to refer to the length of the film is confusing. That said, I like that you do it, because in historical terms you make it clear that this a historically accurate way to depict the contemporaneous terms that were used. However, I think that you probably need to reuse "note B" more often throughout and be consistent with conversions. For example:
  • "Despite his original contract stipulating that all films made by von Stroheim be under 8,500 feet, von Stroheim shot a total of 446,103 feet of footage for the film—running approximately 85 hours." We know how long the 446k reels runs, but about how long is the 8.5k?

I'll return to finish soon, hopefully by Friday. In the meantime, I have my own nomination up here that I don't feel bad about shamelessly plugging for critique. Give it a look if you can! Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've done a lot of work on this page and taken both of the contributing editors suggestions, although I still do not agree with changing the Cast or Myths and Misconceptions sections. It still may need anothe Copy Edit, but otherwise I'm open to more suggestions.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Flotilla (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): → Call me Hahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Flotilla is a turn-based strategy space combat video game developed by Brendon Chung's video game studio, Blendo Games. It was released in 26 February 2010 for Microsoft Windows, and in 30 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. The game employs Microsoft's XNA game platform, and its development was influenced by cats and board games, such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. The game follows the player in an 30-minute adventure through a randomly generated galaxy. → Call me Hahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Comments from Tezero
  • I realize this may have been a contentious issue at GAN (I haven't checked), but why are there only two reviews listed? The table seems like a better place for them than the Reception text, which should probably be expanded a bit.
    • Mainly because I forgot. Updated table and expanded reception section.
  • "Gamers With Jobs" - decapitalize "With".
    • Done
  • "Allen Cook from Gamers With Jobs commented that Flotilla's gameplay setup worked 'as if Homeworld only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time.'" - I've never heard of Homeworld. Looks to be decently well-known among the strategy community, but I'd still prefer the game be introduced somehow. Perhaps "One reviewer compared Flotilla's gameplay setup to that of the 1999 real-time strategy game Homeworld if it "only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time."" would work more nicely.
    • Hmmm. Used your suggestion but with some slight changes.
  • "The challenges are tactical battles the player must fight against a variety of different enemies" - I realize that this is correct grammar, but it might be less awkward to add "in which" after "battles".
    • Done
  • "'tattooed chicken space pirates or crocodiles suffering from space madness.'" - I'd recommend paraphrasing the quote, as it's not clear who it's from and I really don't see anything too necessary about the precise wording.
    • Done
  • "heavier rear and back armor" - is there a difference between the two I'm not aware of?
    • Oops!
  • "has contributed to the development of" - I'd change "has" to "had" just so the article doesn't get out of date if Chung later works on significantly more successful games.
    • Done
  • "after Pandemic Studios was shut down and around 200 staff laid off by Electronic Arts" - this would sound more natural in active voice.
    • Changed it to "after 200 staff were laid out by Electronic Arts along with the closure of Pandemic Studios." Help needed :)
  • "The prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game" - I was under the impression that Flotilla was 2D. If not, please explain otherwise earlier.
    • Nope. Flotilla is 3D. Let me explain that in gameplay.
  • "The game includes a limited length of play time in the solo mode" - you've already said this. Knot it somewhere into the next sentence.
    • Done
  • "The patch introduced a new "hardcore" mode that could be played without time limits." - again, redundant. Just change it to something like "This was the inspiration for Flotilla's hardcore mode", and use that as either a new sentence or a semicolon-ed extension of the previous sentence.
    • Went with "and a new "hardcore" mode was introduced"
  • (image) "each 30 seconds" - change "each" to "every".
    • Done
  • Is GameFAQs a reliable source for release dates? I recall some murmurs about that not long ago. If not, I expect you could find a "Flotilla releases this Thursday"-type articles from IGN or something.
    • Let me check.
  • Is Gaming Daily a reliable source? It seems to have hidden among the bushes at WP:VG/RS. I've heard of it and no ill thoughts spring at me, but it's worth questioning.
    • I think it is. I've never seen problems with it, though I can ask around just in case.

The article looks great otherwise. Tezero (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! → Call me Hahc21 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21: To be clear, I'll support the candidacy if you can provide an answer about the sources. I notice you've edited a bit since I made these comments, so I just wanted to remind you. Tezero (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: I already removed GameFAQs. I have yet to make my mind about GamingDaily. @Sven Manguard: what do you think about Gaming Daily? is it reliable? → Call me Hahc21 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I checked GamingDaily's about page from the time that the article was written. They had a general editor, a deputy editor, and three writers. I am unimpressed with what I could find on the credentials of the general editor (link to his blog) and even less impressed with the (apparent lack of) credentials of the person that wrote the review (link to his blog). The review itself is passable, but not great.
The issue with removing GamingDaily is that everywhere GamingDaily is used as a source, Gamers with Jobs is also used as a source. Like the GamingDaily review, I found the Gamers with Jobs review passable but not great. However, I found no indication that the person writing the review was a staff writer, and more problematically, found no indication that Gamers with Jobs has editorial policies/oversight.
I'd say remove them both, but that would leave a majority of the Gameplay section unsourced. I would say remove Gamers with Jobs, but that would leave the section heavily dependent on the review from GamingDaily. Ultimately, I am going to decline to give a recommendation. These are not sources that I would use if I were writing an article, but I write articles on XBLA games, where better sources are readily available. You would be better served asking for advice from someone that works in indie game articles, and has a better feel for what level of quality and formal editorial control is acceptable in that area. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I think you'd want PresN (talk · contribs). Tezero (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero:: Addressed all, I think (source replacement on the way). More comments? :) → Call me Hahc21 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Nah. Support: I trust that you'll find acceptable sources and, well, if you don't, someone else will oppose on source quality. My other concerns are all addressed. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Still need to do a full review, but here's a short source review, unindented:

Source review by PresN
  • To answer the above question: GameFAQs is not a reliable source for anything, including release dates- they're user-generated. Unfortunately, since they share databases, that makes GameSpot game landing pages non-reliable sources as well. That said, you don't usually need sources for dates in the infobox; they're not likely to be challenged. Just for future reference; what you have now is fine.
  • If you stick |deadurl=no in your citations, it makes the main link the quick-loading live url, not the archive
  • Gaming Daily - I'm... going to go with non-RS on this. There's no indication that they pay the writers, do any editorial control, exist primarily on their own writing rather than whatever they can get people to submit for free, even have a backing company, etc. Their "write for us" page is dead, but the archive gives no indication either. If you could find any use of their stuff as a source by RS's, or confirmation that they did fact-checking/editing on articles, or prove Paul Millen's personal notability, then you'd be good.
  • Gamers with Jobs - I feel a bit better about this one, but it's still on the wrong side of the line- a nicer layout and a larger userbase is the only difference. Same deal- find usage of their stuff by RS's, contact them and get them to say that they don't just post whatever, prove Allen Cooks' personal notability, etc.
  • SquareGo - As an interview, I'm fine with it.
  • FidGit - Link Tom Chick and Sci Fi Channel (United States), please
  • The rest seems fine.
  • Source you might want to use: large bit-tech review (professional, owned by Dennis Publishing)

--PresN 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

    • @PresN: I have addressed all. I will read the Bit-Tech one this week and add it. → Call me Hahc21 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Media review by Sven Manguard

This article has three images. Two images are freely licensed, and one is non-free.

File:Flotilla Coverart.png is a non-free image. It meets the NFCC and has an appropriate FUR
File:Flotilla - combat (Blendo Games).jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing. There is no evidence that the account that released the images is Blendo's official Flickr (and no link to it in the media section of the official website), but no evidence to the contrary either.
File:Brendon Chung at GDC 2012.jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing.

I have written to the studio to confirm that the Flirkr account is legitimate, and also to ask for the first image to be released under a free license. As it stands, this article passes media review regardless. This is not a support vote for the article; I don't do those. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sven Manguard: All these images were given by Brendong Chung after Masem contacted him during the FAC candidacy of Gravity Bone. Maybe Masem can help confirm that. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the account is legit. I knew Brendan via the Shacknews website and helped guide him how to up these to flickr and license them for our use. If needed, I can submit to ORTS the message chain for that. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks! Though I admit I'm jealous. → Call me Hahc21 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The email is already sent. I was unaware of the Masem connection. An OTRS record verifying that the Flickr account is official would be a good thing to have, if it's not too much trouble. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21, Masem: - My contact with Blendo Games has been a success. We now have freely licensed cover art for six of his games (including this one), and there is an OTRS ticket on file confirming the authenticity of the Flickr account. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Review from czar
In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar  15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.

  • copyedit done, in lieu of small suggestions. Some things: "Raindrop" goes in quotes per its own article, direct quotes need immediate citations, I removed some ambiguities, WP uses logical quotation with punctuation almost always outside the quotations
  • Could use more gameplay summary in lede. More can be added to show why the game was notable.
  • The purpose of the Gamers with Jobs quote is ambiguous—is he describing Homeworld or Flotilla and why is the quote preferable to just paraphrasing his point?
  • Coop mode uses a single controller? Clarify
    • Done
  • The relevance of the id Tech 2 experience isn't clear
    • Removed
  • There is a bit of excessive quoting in the Gameplay section. If it can be made more concise through paraphrase, that's the way to go
    • In the gameplay section? I think you meant Reception no?
  • Steam redlink
    • Already fixed.
  • The Reception section is a little weak. Why is every reviewer listed in order with its numerical score instead of leading a discussion of the game's major sticking points and points of praise? More can be said by way of paraphrase and apart from the "X gave it # of # and added, QUOTE" format. If multiple reviewers referred to its charm, that can be grouped together in a single sentence.
  • "but criticized the multiplayer mode": if it's worth mentioning this criticism in the first place, it would be worth mentioning what about it he criticized; matchmaking criticism could be cleaned up too
  • What did Mike Rose say about the game?
    • Nothing remarkable. I thought about adding something but Rose only did a brief summary of the game etc.
  • That Miller quote had two typos [his, not yours] in it... is Gaming Daily reliable? (WP:VG/RS)
    • Removed, replacing now.
  • Thank you for using list-defined refs
    • I love them as much as I love order. It keeps the sections readable.
  • Release information is not cited in the article (stuff in the lede should be cited within the article)
    • According to PresN, this is not needed anywhere, but I already cited it in the infobox (maybe you didn't see it)
  • Is there no mention of how this game relates to Chung's later works? No influence or confluence of style?
    • Not at all, sadly. Such type of analysis only exists to his Citizen Abel series of games (Gravity Bone, Thirty Flights of Loving, Quadrilateral...)
  • "in 29 March 2014" constructions should change "in" to "on"
    • I always get confused with those. Non-native speaker problems.

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar  18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Czar:: Addressed some. → Call me Hahc21 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I reworked the Reception section. However, since this is a not-so-famous indie game, there not much that can be done to expand it more. Do you have any more comments? I'd like to know if I have addressed them all. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unaddressed: there is no gameplay summary in lede, more can be done to show why the game is notable in lede, comment about multiplayer mode criticism. I still think more of the direct quotations can be struck and paraphrased.
  • I don't know where PresN said the release date doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, and I wouldn't say it's a rule, but this would mean that there is no coverage of the game's actual release in the article (other than professional reviews, not the release itself). In a FA? Why? There is also nothing on porting the game, or the non-simultaneous release? (Also the infobox dates appear to be out of order.)
  • @Czar: Because this is an indie game. Indie games like this usually receive coverage in the form of reviews and interviews. Only major, non-indie games receive coverage about release dates because publishers are very buzzy about that. This isn't like that. When an indie game is finished, it's released and that's it. Then, reviewers become aware amd write reviews. → Call me Hahc21 19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Minor concern, but I don't know why Space Piñata is mentioned in the lede. It's fine with just the description
  • (Another minor concern: I don't know what's up with the "no include" tags on this review page. The FAC page specifically asked not to use semicolons.)
  • The noinclude thing is to avoid the headers to appear on the main FAC page. I'm fine if the semicolons are replaced with boldings.
  • I don't understand why dmy became mdy. I see a strong nat ties argument in the edit summaries, but I think WP:RETAIN takes precedent over the extremely unimportant (not mentioned in the article once) fact that Blendo is based in the US.
  • Clarifications can still be made to the Gameplay—what is randomly generated (at least link it?) Is there one "the player" or multiple "players" in the Gameplay explanation. I still don't really know how the Gameplay works. Is there a 30-second time limit to enter commands that are then executed in unison? Is the window for movement only open every 30 seconds (briefly) and the movement happens simultaneously? We need much more info about how the controls and core mechanics work.
  • The prose has become chunkier in the flurry of edits since I last touched the article. Could use a copyedit. Some examples: mixed punctuation inside/outside quotation marks (mentioned in original copyedit notes above), "Before Flotilla, Chung worked on a prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game called Space Piñata, whose gameplay and structure were similar to those of the final version of Flotilla." → "similar in gameplay and structure to the final Flotilla release" and I'd also turn the comma parenthetical to an em dash parenthetical for readability, "Flotilla has a cooperative mode that can be played with an additional Xbox 360 controller, as well as a split-screen multiplayer mode." → "has cooperative and split-screen multiplayer modes that can", etc. I wouldn't say the prose is at 1a professional brilliance yet. I already gave it a look earlier (I wanted to just come back to support) but I'm out of time, so it's someone else's turn to copyedit.
  • I have to oppose on these quality concern grounds, though I think they're surmountable. I don't want the opp to put the nom in danger, so please ping me to do the copyedit on a weekend if you absolutely can't get anyone else to do it. czar  14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Drive-by review from Chris857
  • "It also incorporates several pieces of classical music, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude, in its score." - in my opinion, this would read more naturally as "It also incorporates several pieces of classical music in its score, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude." Chris857 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Chris857: Tweaked. Cheers! → Call me Hahc21 20:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Review from JimmyBlackwing

Some stuff I noticed, written as I read through the article from top to bottom.

  • Is it necessary to include all of its exact release dates in the lead? The infobox has those handled. Perhaps change it to the slicker, easier-to-read, "It was released in March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows and on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360."
  • Done.
  • Coming into this article as someone who has never even heard of this game, the line in the lead about its development being "influenced by cats" is incoherent to me. What about cats was used as an influence? Their fur? Their sleeping habits? Going to need some clarification.
  • This is not clear in the source either. However, I have emailed Brendon to know if he can expand a bit on this.
  • While it would be interesting to find out what he meant, we'll need a reliable, verifiable reference if that information is to be used in an article. An email does not qualify as a reliable, verifiable reference. I think it would be best to remove the cats mention, because it's too confusing and meaningless as it stands.
  • Actually, I disagree. We can treat his email as a primary source (it is a detail about how the game was developed, so all info about it comes from a primary source, even if published by a third-p source) and add the information to the article. Since the cats thing was used for DYK, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove it from the article.
  • Also, some redundancy in the first paragraph: the last two sentences begin with "The game", and the second-to-last sentence uses both "development" and "developed". Maybe change "development" to "design".
  • Done.
  • The second paragraph states that Chung developed Flotilla immediately after Pandemic shut down. The use of the word "developed" makes it sound like the game was made in a day. Perhaps "Chung began developing Flotilla" would be better.
  • Done.
  • What was Space Pinata a prototype of, and who made it? It's not clear.
  • It was just a game prototype, developed by Chung. Clarified.
  • Also, as a general rule, formulations such as ", and used" or ", and was included" should be ", and it used" or ", and it was included"—when discussing an object, that is.
  • Will have in mind, thanks!
  • What is a non-playable opponent? Is this is same thing as an artificially intelligent opponent? If that's the case, then I recommend the latter wording, as it's clearer.
  • Changed to The game lets the player and opponents (controlled by the game's artificial intelligence) issue orders...
  • There are a lot of unnecessary words here: "usually given no more than a few ships to control". Try, "usually controls less than X ships", where X is replaced by the relevant number. To remain grammatically correct after this change, the second half of the sentence will have to begin ", which may be".
  • The problem is that your suggestion is not accurate. The player is given no more than a few ships to control at the beginning of the game, but they can eventually control more ships later. However, I did not specify this either. I tweaked the sentence now. Take a look.
  • Thanks for the clarification. I tweak the wording of the new version a bit, but, aside from that, it looks good.
  • "fixed duration" can be changed to "duration".
  • Done.
  • Instead of "a new randomly generated galaxy is created and filled with planets and enemy ships", try "a new galaxy is randomly generated and filled with planets and enemy ships".
  • Done.
  • I don't understand the sentence regarding tutorials. Does the player have to play a tutorial each time he or she begins an adventure? Also, what does the tutorial teach?
  • Tweaked. It teaches the basic gameplay stuff.
  • If "all planets offer a possible quest", then there is a single quest offered by all planets collectively. Try, "Each planet offers a possible quest".
  • Fixed.
  • You write that Flotilla's single-player mode is a "single adventure" that must be replayed; yet, lower down, you write that "a new chapter is added to the player's character's story" upon victory. I don't understand how these two things fit together.
  • Victory there refers to each challenge within a single playthrough. These are then reset when a new adventure is started. However, the game keeps track of the player's score in each playthrough at the scoreboard.
  • I see it now. I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding.
  • You need to merge the challenge-related information at the end of the second paragraph with that at the beginning of the third. As it stands, you explain what a challenge is after you've told us everything else about it. I recommend that you introduce a line break after "being able to freely explore the galaxy", and that you begin the third paragraph like so:
  • Each planet offers a possible quest or challenge to the player. Challenges are tactical battles in which the player must defeat a certain number of enemy ships. However, ships can only be harmed from behind or below; attacks from any other position will be countered by the ships' shields. Upon succeeding, a new chapter is added to the player's character's story, and the player is awarded with ship upgrades.
  • Tweaked.
  • I don't understand this: "the player may not receive the same upgrade by playing the same encounter in two different adventures." Again, you wrote that the single-player mode is a "single adventure". I'm not sure how a single adventure can be "two different adventures", or how the same encounter can play out twice in a randomly generated galaxy.
  • I think that my removing of the word "single" solved this point. it is not a "single adventure," and I still don't know what I meant by it. Anyways, it's gone :)
  • How can Chung develop a game "under his video game studio"? Was he developing it in his basement? I'm not sure what this means.
  • Woah forgot to tweak wording on Dev. Done.
  • "Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed." -- "He started coding Flotilla in 2009, after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios and laid off 200 members of that company's staff."
  • Went with Crisco's suggestion. I don't see why mentioning that 200 staff was laid is important for this game.
  • "a set of tools focused on video game development created by Microsoft." -- "a set of game development tools created by Microsoft."
  • Done.
  • Even in the Development section, the line about cats makes no sense. Definitely need to rework that with more explanation.
  • Let's see what Chung says about it!
  • Was Space Pinata the game that he began developing after Pandemic closed, or was he developing it as a side project while working at Pandemic? As it stands, it's unclear.
  • We don't know when he developed Space Piñata. We only know that it happened before Flotilla.
  • "acknowledged that the games was" should be "acknowledged that the game was".
  • Good catch.
  • "elaborated that althought" should be "elaborated that although".
  • Good catch x2
  • "but concluded that it was however a "sadly disposable" experience" -- the "however" is unnecessary.
  • Already done (by Crisco I suppose)
  • "Joe Martin from Bit-Tech named Flotilla a " hilarious and brazenly original" game." -- Flotilla is not italicized here, and there's a space separating the quotation mark from "hilarious".
  • Oops!
  • "though concluded" -- "though he concluded"
  • Done.
Thanks for the comments! → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Technical notes

  • Do you have issue numbers for the Edge, PC Zone, PC Gamer US and PC Gamer UK reviews? Also, I'm fairly certain that the titles of those articles were not all "Flotilla review"--and that three out of four of those magazines list reviewer names.
  • Let me use my magical-and-resourceful skill to find these. I was not able to do it at first but I admit I was lazy.
  • JimmyBlackwing: Got the PC Gamer US one. However, the UK one, as well as the PC Zone and Edge ones are really though. Edge is issue 214, but I have been unable to get the name of the reviewer. I asked Future Publishing about it (Edge and UK). PC Zone, I think it is issue number 222. The last issue (225) was released in September, so the May one should be 222. I originally took these reviews from Metacritic, though.
  • Edge reviews have always been anonymous. I added the PCGUK issue number--and I think you should add the PC Zone number you found. I'll let the rest slide, I suppose.
  • Flotilla should be italicized in each reference.
  • Done.
  • If you provide an archive for a URL that is still online, remember to include "deadurl=no" in the citation template. The SquareGo and Kotaku links are still live, and others might be as well.
  • I think this was pointed out to me, can't remember when. I'll do it soon.
  • The cover needs alt text.
  • The alt text parameter has been deprecated from the {{Infobox video game}} template. I can't add it :(
  • I wasn't aware of this. Oh well.

Aside from that, it looks fairly solid. I don't know enough about the game to judge the article's completeness, but I've helped with enough indie game articles to know that the average number of available sources is low. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I ran through the article with a little follow-up copyediting, and the prose seems solid enough now. Once you get the last of the technical stuff sorted out, I'll be willing to support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The deadurl business still needs to be taken care of. Also, I made a comment about the cats line above that I think you might have missed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Took care of the deadurl thing. The one about cats, I commented above. → Call me Hahc21 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Support, then. Good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Crisco comments
  • Since this is an American game, shouldn't we be using Month-Day-Year?
    • Oh well, I use this date format on every article I write. it is consistent with the format used in my country and language. I admit that I hate the MM-DD-YYYY formats (I mean 12-1-2011, for example). I wouldn't mind using the expanded one though.
      • I meant the expanded one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh well, I never use it mostly because I dislike the additional comma. Though I wouldn't mind if it's changed. → Call me Hahc21 04:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the box art of Chung's other games has also been released under a CC license (in case you missed that)
    • Still can't believe it.
  • 29 March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows, and on 25 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. - wouldn't it be best to go in chronological order?
    • Chopped the days off the lead, so this is a bit moot.
  • by cats and board games such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. - I feel like this can be rephrased, like using "as well as" rather than "and" in front of board games.
    • Done.
  • single-player mode is framed as a single adventure - any way to avoid repeating "single"?
    • Removed the "single" from "single adventure". It was nonsense and inaccurate!
  • Full Spectrum Warrior and Lord of the Rings: Conquest. - years?
    • Added.
  • Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed. - why not just "after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios"
    • Done.
  • How did cats influence this????
    • Good question. Asked Chung to see if he can clarify a bit more :)
  • Charge Shot - what makes this review worth noting?
    • I mostly use the reference for gameplay details, so I saw no issue by adding it to the Reception section too.
  • Did Chung include a manual or little bits of information like in Thirty Flights of Loving? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope. At least the version I own of the game does not have one. → Call me Hahc21 04:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)I asked him about this too.
  • Looks like we're just waiting on the cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Comments by DWB
  • Some of the wording seems awkward, this seems to be partly because there is too little content available to dedicate much space to a particular area so you get one sentence leading into another on a completely different topic. I'm not sure that part can be fixed.
    • Neither do I, sadly.
  • I think replacing the Metacritic mention in the lede with a brief summary of the positives and negatives highlighted by critics would be of more benefit than an arbitrary score.
    • I'll see what I can do.
  • I think the influences need explaining, especially the cat thing.
    • Done, thanks to Brendon.
  • What is "hardcore" mode, what limitation was removed? The time limit?
    • Yes. The Development section also explained what was it, but I was told to remove it since it was already explained in the Gameplay.
  • Like the other Chung games, there seems to be a struggle to beef up the critical reception section. Is it possible to find reviews outside of Metacritic to expand on things or give alternate opinions?
    • Did my best, came up with nothing.
  • All the images are not Non-Fair Use, so no issue there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


Update (Crisco 1492, JimmyBlackwing, Czar): Brendon answered my email explaining the cats thing, and thank god he did. It is now way more clear what he meant by it. So I assume that the cats point is now solved. I did my best to add a proper citation, since this is the first time I do something like that. Oh, he also said that there's not developer commentary for Flotilla. Now, about that copyedit... Miniapolis, would you pelase give me a hand? :) → Call me Hahc21 19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Are we allowed to cite emails? Even to the OTRS? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no idea. → Call me Hahc21 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I think that, since we are interviewing, this would fall afoul of WP:OR. It would be best for Brendon to make a blog post, then cite that per WP:SPS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • As a video game journalist myself, I could just write a short story about Flotilla and include the commentary he gave me on that email. Though I am afraid that it might be considered as to be promoting myself. However, I just can't ask him to make a blog post, I'd prefer if Sven does it :) → Call me Hahc21 04:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Assuming the publication is an RS, this discussion suggests that it is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
            • @Crisco 1492: It would be published at Novo Adagio. → Call me Hahc21 06:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Hmm... we don't have an article on the site, nor does it seem to be cited here much. I'll ping WikiProject Video games. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Given that the article would just be making publicly available facts from the developer that are backed by an email to OTRS, I'm fine with using it as a source regardless of the inherent reliability of the site as a whole. In this case, I think we'd say that the site is situationally an RS, depending on the author, so the fact we have an uncitable basis for the article from the devs makes it fine. --PresN 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • Sounds fine with me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • As with me. While I personally think Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are a little too strict, this seems to demonstrate reliability per what official policy is aiming for. Tezero (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Audie Murphy[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most decorated American combat soldiers of World War II. He also had a successful career as a film actor. This article has passed GA review, and also A-Class review at WP Military history. It has been further polished in the ensuing months to prepare it for FAC. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: On the basis of a swift glance this looks an interesting, comprehensive and well written article. Sadly, Murphy's profile in the UK, at least to my generation, is virtually non-existent, and I am at a loss to understand why so interesting a man is so little known here. I hope to give the article more solid review attention, but meanwhile here is a handful of minor points/observations:

  • I am always uneasy to see a paragraph that ends without a citation (see Southern and southeastern France). In this case the solution is simple – flip the sentence: "Along with the other individual soldiers who took part in the action he received the Presidential Unit Citation[51]."
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As myself the son of an army man, I'm astonished that Murphy, even in wartime, could achieve the rank of Staff Sergeant at the age of 18-and-a-bit. These accelerated promotions seem extraordinary; was Murphy's case in any way typical?
I don't know what was typical for the US Army in WWII. In some cases it might have been a result of performance. But during WWII, the Army probably took a look around at who was available to shoulder a given responsibility, and slapped a promotion on them. That happened just hours preceding his Medal of Honor action at Holtzwihr (Colmar Pocket). The reason of that has been edited out as FAC prep necessitated paring down the article. What happened there, is that the other officers of his company had been killed. He was the only officer still standing, so they made him company commander. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Cutting in here. It would have been extraordinary in the Old Army, but not during World War II. When the squad size was increased from 8 to 12 in 1941, the squad leader was made a sergeant, with a corporal as second in command. The platoon sergeants then became staff sergeants. Multiplied across nearly 300 infantry regiments, this created a requirement for 25,000 sergeants. In 1943, a further increase occurred, with the platoon sergeants becoming technical sergeants, the squad leaders becoming staff sergeants and the deputy squad leaders becoming sergeants. In December 1941 one in five enlisted men was an NCO; by June 1945 nearly half were. Coupled with casualties in the front line infantry platoons that reached 90% at times, one's chance of making staff sergeant was excellent so long as you stayed alive — which Murphy would tell you was the real trick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the difference between the Standby Reserve and the US Army Reserve?
The Texas National Guard is a component of the U.S. Army Reserve forces. During Audie's period of service with the Guard, it went through a lot of restructuring, and change of terminology. "Standby Reserve" is merely a status within the Army/Guard. His service records show him transferring to "inactive" status in 1951, and in 1952 the Army began calling that Ready Reserve, which I believe had both "active" and "inactive" components. When he first entered the Guard, he was actively involved in training troops. Then he went to inactive due to his movie commitments, but he could have been called up at any time. When he transferred to Standby Reserve in 1966, it meant the Army/Guard took into consideration his value to the civilian community, and while he still could have been called up it was less likely to happen. Somewhat confusing, but about what terminology they used to define his status in any given time. His 1969 retirement from the U.S. Army reserve was just that - a complete retirement from military service.— Maile (talk) 13:1, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In the British Army this was called the Reserve of Officers. They had completed their service with the colours in the regulars or the TA, and had no training obligations, but remained available for call up in the event of mobilisation. For this they were paid a small amount each month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "His relationship with director Budd Boetticher began..." To the casual reader this wording sounds equivocal; I would qualify (e.g. "working relationship") or reword
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Footnote "i" needs futher citation
Done. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've not done a sources check, but Ref 23 looks as though it should be pp. not p.
Done. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's all I can offer for the moment, though as indicated I hope to return. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have taken care of everything you mentioned above. Thanks for your input.— Maile (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • To Hell and Back caption needs editing for formatting
Done. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Chevalier_ribbon.svg, File:Croix_de_guerre_1939-1945_with_palm_(France)_-_ribbon_bar.png, File:BEL_Croix_de_Guerre_1944_ribbon.svg, File:Texas_Legislative_Medal_of_Honor_Ribbon.svg - what is the copyright status of the original design? Compare the licensing used for the other ribbons
Removed all ribbons from infobox due to licensing concerns above. It didn't look right if some had ribbons and some didn't, so I removed them all.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment There are no copyright concerns. Medal ribbon design do not reach he threshold of originality. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, in that case I've restored all the ribbons to the infobox. Thanks for the information.— Maile (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Memorial_Audie_Murphy_-_Holtzwihr.jpg: the source site given has a copyright notice on it - what evidence is there to support the given licensing tag?
Removed this entirely. This was inserted by a red link editor several weeks ago. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Moh_army_mil.jpg as a 3D work, the licensing needs to reflect the copyright status of both the medal itself and the photo thereof.
I swapped this out with a different image from Commons. Check the one I inserted. It was the only Army one I could find that actually identifies its origin.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope I've answered your concerns.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Oppose for now. Sorry, I hate to oppose, but this needs quite a lot of work. I'm also astonished that this chap isn't better known on this side of the Atlantic and I'd love to see this become an FA. However:

  • The prose is choppy, to the point of being nigh unreadable in places. Far too many short sentences, and they all seem to start with "Murphy" or "he".
Edits have been done.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of the grammar is sloppy, to the point that in at least one place (His first met director Budd Boetticher began when) it quite literally doesn't make sense.
See below on this specific instance. — Maile (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You have a habit of using nouns and dates as adjectives, which makes the article difficult to read; I've tweaked a few of these using several different methods for variety, so you might want to look through my edits.
Edits have been done by another editor.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)p
  • The chronology is confusing
I completely disagree with the chronology as "confusing". It's pretty much like it was after the A-class review from WP Military History. And they were very picky that it needed to have a chron flow. It does, and flows in chronological order. Dates are mentioned where relevant. The only place the chron differs is in the "Film career" section, which seems to be what you don't care for. Again, I refer you to the talk page for part of that answer. The film career section generally follows a chron order. But in his case, it was often more important and more interesting to the reader to group films with people he worked with repeatedly. Directors, producers and writers were more important to what helped make his film career than a dull "...he made such-and-such film....then the next year he made so-and-so film...then the next year..." Personally, I think it's more confusing to flip back and forth looking for, as an example, what films he made with Jesse Hibbs. As for Wanda Hendrix, she didn't figure into his film career until the Alan Ladd movie. That was the place to explain who she was to the reader. It has a good flow, IMO. Just not so cut-and-dried that it reads like a list.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • quite often there's no date given for a particular event and the reader is left scratching their head
You might want to give examples. Dates are where they need to be. If you think something has been left out, please cite them here.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You introduce significant facts out of order, eg Wanda Hendrix, whom he had been dating since (in a paragraph about 1948), Wanda Hendrix, who by that time had become his wife
See my answer above in the chronology.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The article tends towards praising Murphy in parts. His achievements are doubtless heroic, but let the reader come to that conclusion themselves. For example, watch words like "just" and "only".
Your examples puzzle me. What are you seeing? I don't see that either you or any other editor has removed "just" or "only".
  • A Search comes up with "just" in one place: "a large granite marker was erected just off the Appalachian Trail"
  • A Search comes up with "only" here: "stopped only after he ran out of ammunition"; "The only film Murphy made in 1952"; and in reference to his poems "Only two others survived"
I don't see how "just" or "only" is used in the article to praise Murphy.— Maile (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the article suffers from over-compression in some parts and under-compression in others; for example, a great deal is made of campaign medals that were awarded to hundreds of thousands of men, whereas details on the actions which earnt him gallantry awards are relatively sparse.
Well, there used to be more. But what happened to that can be found on the article's talk page.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, since you posted this there have been some recent edits from an FA-level editor. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • A minor issue, but I think you could consolidate some of the sections and reduce the number of headings.
I see you have already reduced the headings. Your edit that changed the heading "Military service" to "World War II service" is an improvement. — Maile (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Some more specific commentary:

  • Murphy dropped out of school in fifth grade and got a job picking cotton for $1 a day to help support the family and became skilled with a rifle, hunting small game to help feed them. Bit of a run-on sentence with the to "and"s
  • How did his mother die?
It's never been said, as far as anything I can find.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Cause of death has now been inserted into the article.— Maile (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • he and two other soldiers were ambushed by German machine-gun fire, one of them fatally Can one be "fatally ambushed"?
Well, one of them died in the ambush, so for him it was fatal. The others lived, so it wasn't a fatal ambush for them. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Reworded by recent editing.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Murphy was promoted to sergeant on December 13 Did he go directly from private to sergeant? None of the junior NCO ranks are mentioned above.
Actually, in the paragraph before that it says he was promoted to Corporal on July 15. And the paragraph before that one says he made Private First Class on May 7. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to include the various merit badges, such as the Marksman/Expert/Combat Infantryman badges? These aren't decorations for bravery etc, and most American infantrymen would have them. Should we focus on the more important awards?
Dicey choice to make, but I understand what you are saying. After all, the honors and awards are now a Featured List on their own. The article's history is full of edit wars over Murphy not getting recognition for every little thing. He has a hard-core base of supporters who aren't willing to give an inch. And Wikipedia is also open to their editing. One of the most heated topics among those is "most decorated" v. "one of the most decorated". Right now, things have stabilized. I think the real question is whether or not we want to eliminate mention of all but the valor awards, thereby guaranteeing the article will dissolve into an edit war.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Murphy advanced alone [...] Along with the other individual soldiers who took part Which is it?
Perhaps you were confused because two different dates of action appear in that paragraph. And,yes, the dates are there in chronological order. The "advanced alone" part happened after they came ashore during the August 15 landing. The last two sentences of that paragraph very clearly puts a different date on what you are referring to Murphy was part of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment participation in the August 27–28 offensive at Montélimar that secured the area from the Germans. Along with the other soldiers who took part in the action, he received the Presidential Unit Citation.— Maile (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "earning" the right word to use in the context of the Purple Heart? Presumably it's not intended to be a reward for getting injured (per se)
All instances of this have been changed. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • He sustained a leg wound during his stand and only after he ran out of ammunition. Only after he ran out of ammunition ... what? It feels like there was something there, but it's been removed, leaving just the fragment.
The word "stopped" was missing, and I reinserted it. For the record, before all that glut of editing back in Jan/Feb, this is what that sentence originally said:
For an hour, Murphy stood on the tank destroyer returning German fire from foot soldiers and advancing tanks, during which he sustained a leg wound. He stopped only after he ran out of ammunition. Thank you for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the point of the decorations section? We've established that he was astonishingly well decorated; shouldn't we just mention the most important ones and refer readers to the daughter article for the full list? Not least since several of these were awarded to just about every American soldier who fought in WWII and so aren't really significant, unlike the MoH and the Silver and Bronze stars.
Well, I can't explain what I didn't create. That second was set up by a different editor during the "improvements" to get it to FAC. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to my answer to your question of "Do we really need to include the various merit badges". I would also refer you to FA Douglas MacArthur as an example. Such a section seems in keeping with FA. — Maile (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They never cast Murphy in a movie and a personal disagreement ended the association. I've put a {{when?}} tag on that
I took care of this as soon as I saw the tag.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So you did. My apologies.
  • The partnership fell into disagreement That's a strange construction. Why not just "they fell out" or similar
I think we might be looking at this as British language usage v. American. Partnerships that "fall into disagreement" is OK as far as I'm concerned. And if you do a search on Wikipedia for articles that contain the phrase "fell into disagreement" you will see a lot of instances of its use. — Maile (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This sentence in the article has been edited differently by another editor, and I'm OK with the editing on it.— Maile (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The 1950s ended with Murphy doing three westerns. That's a really horrible construction. There are lots of different ways you can say what you're trying to say, almost any of which are preferable.
Reworded with recent editing. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • His first met director Budd Boetticher began when Murphy requested to be his boxing partner at Terry Hunt's Athletic Club wtf?
This was a typo, and it's been corrected now. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I stopped at the end of the "Film career" section, because there's too much to list everything here; I've done quite a bit of copy-editing as I've gone through, but it needs attention from somebody familiar with the subject and the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comments here. And not any excuses, but an explanation of some hunks of what you see. If you read the talk page on the article, you should see part of it. Several seasoned editors agreed to help out, and then didn't except for a tweak here and there. A couple started to do more, and then abandoned it. with no explanation and no response when I repeatedly tried to initiate contact. The film section literally got copied and edited down from Film career of Audie Murphy, torn up and reworked. The military section used to be more but was split off by someone else, and I tried to work with what is left. It's been quite a history of false starts on editing help. Of course, on the other hand, it's come a million miles since a year ago. The chronology and dates used to have a great flow after the WP Military History A-class review. But then...there's that talk page stuff.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look. But it's 2am here, so it won't be right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I do appreciate what you have done. It's been bit disheartening to me that I've tried every avenue I can think of, both online at WP and in emails, to get editing help with his. While there has been some helpful editing, it's often been a case of getting help/advice of going one direction, and the next go-round of editing help is telling me to do a U-turn and go back the other direction. That, and it seems that the more experienced at WP tend to be touchy and disappear in the blink of the eye with no explanation. So, for what you have done here, and anything else you might do, thank you.— Maile (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
In your edits you uncapped all mentions of "Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster" and "Oak Leaf Cluster". I have reverted those changes. Per pg. 18 of the United States Army Style Guide, these are specific awards that are supposed to be capitalized. Improperly uncapping awards has triggered edit wars in the article's history.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I have also reverted your edit of changing "the Guard" to "the guard". Per the United States Government Printing Office Manual of Style, Chapter 4, "the Guard" is correct.— Maile (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, I think I might have confused you with a recent edit summary on this article. It was not intentional, and I didn't realize until I looked at the dab for GPO that it could have many meanings. In the United States, it is the official government acronym of the United States Government Printing Office, and I was referring to the above-mentioned manual.— Maile (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sultanate of Singora[edit]

Nominator(s): Singora (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Sultanate of Singora -- a little-known sultanate that existed in the deep south of Thailand until the late 1600s. The sultanate was ruled by a family of Persians. In my opinion, this is one of the most comprehensive English language accounts of the sultanate ever written. ( Singora (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC) )

Comment – Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the article go through a "good article" review before it can become a featured article candidate? Madalibi (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  • No, it does not have to. Some recommend it, but there is no requirement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sultante_of_singora.png: what is the source of this image? What data sources / base maps were used to create it? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It's either a modified version of an image taken from Wikipedia or one sent to me by a Thai government department. I think it's probably the latter, but can't be certain. I altered it in Photoshop and added the text. ( Singora (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC) )
      • The base map appears to be identical to Hdamm's series of SVG maps of Thailand. (See File:Amphoe Songkhla.svg.) It's CC-BY-SA licensed, so the image description will need to mention the original. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
        • OK. How do I do that? ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
          • Just edit the file description page on Commons and mention Hdamm as the original author and link to the original source files. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Done. I've linked to the guy's Songkhla graphic, credited him as the author and put in the CC-BY-SA permission.
  • Is it Singgora or Singora?—indopug (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It can be either. On the Wikipedia page Sultan, it's listed at the very bottom as Singgora. Some of the English language signs near the forts render it as Singkhora. The name Singora is more common, though.
    • ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
  • If Singora is more common, then you should move this to Sultanate of Singora. As it is, it is quite jarring to see Singgora in the title and the infobox, but Singora everywhere else.—indopug (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. How would I do this? As stated, I only started using the SINGGORA page because that's what someone else had set up. It was just an empty page back at the beginning of January, but I always knew it wasn't ideal. Note too that a few pages on Wikipedia link to my article, so I guess you'd need a kind of re-direct to the new page. Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
One more point: I just added a NOTE to the bottom of the page which mentions Singora's alternative spellings (ie, Singgora and Singkhora). Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just removed all instances of SINGGORA from the infobox. If someone can show me how to set up a re-direct, I'll move everything to Sultanate of Singora Singora (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the article. Next time when you need to, point to the drop-down menu next to the search box (if you're using the default skin) and select "Move". The redirect will be created automatically. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This is definitely better. Singora (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - taking a look now. Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd start in the lead by stating what it was (sultanate/kingdom/self-governing body in X century) rather than saying it was the precursor of Sonkhla in the first sentence.
I think it's actually quite important to make the link between Singora and Songkhla at the beginning of the article. Present-day sources sometimes refer to it as "ancient Songkhla" or "the old town at Khao Daeng". Other sources use the names interchangeably.
For example, see page 35 of this PDF: [[70]]. I use this source in the article, by the way, but link to the government website instead of SCRIBD. The text reads "Sultan Syleyman Shah governed Singgora city (Song Khla) 400 years ago". This sentence is also pertinent to the question above re: Singora or Singgora.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
OK, I just changed the first sentence in the lead. It now reads The Sultanate of Singora was a short-lived city-state in southern Thailand and precursor of the present-day town of Songkhla.
Singora (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Perfect . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, we don't use article names in heading titles, hence The Singora legacy would be fine as Legacy.
Done.
I am wondering whether the Persians in 17th century Siam section would be better closer up the top of the article as it gives some context (?)
This is actually the last block of text I wrote. I see it as a sort of appendix. I also see it as something that could be developed in another Wiki article.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
I made some changes with (hopefully) sufficient explanation in the edit summaries - let me know if they are okay.
Yep -- your edits are fine. I had that sentence "The tomb of Sultan Sulaiman enjoys an atmospheric setting in a Muslim graveyard". I thought it sounded quite good, but was aware that it wasn't encyclopedic.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )
It can be a fine line between sterile prose to concise and engaging prose to adding some words to make it more engaging to too wordy...and sometimes folks views on this differ. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support on comprehensiveness and prose, though concede my knowledge in the area is lacking, so this would be trumped if other readers found issues. Overall, a nice read -a concise, engaging article on a (to me) unknown piece of history. I don't really know enough to be too confident about its comprehensiveness but it appears to cover the topic well, and I can't see any other glaring fixable prose issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Excellent article. Support on prose, though i have no knowledge of this area of history. One suggestion. In the section 'destruction', the article says "He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer employed by the Siamese army" followed by a quote. I support the use of quotes of primary historical documents, but not reliance on them to be the only statement of the facts - the quote should be retained, but the expanation of how the French cannoneer brought about Singora's demise should be summarised in the article text. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. In a version of the article from January 31 ([[71]]), I summarized the 'destruction' section with "Diplomat Simon de la Loubere wrote that the war had lasted twenty years and ended when the sultan was captured by a French cannoneer working for the Siamese army"
I've just re-jigged the current version. It now reads He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer who crept into the city one night and single-handedly captured the sultan. What do you think? Singora (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
yep, that sorts it, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • Admiral Niphon Sirithorn (a former admiral of the Royal Thai Navy) We already know that he was an admiral, just tell us that he was in the RTN.
    • Done. I've written : Present-day descendants of Sultan Sulaiman include Admiral Niphon Sirithorn, a former Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Navy. Both the RTN and list of commanders are linked.
  • Link Prime Minister of Thailand and Royal Thai Navy on first use.
    • Done.
  • Delete the specifics about his descendants from the lede and combine the last two paragraphs in the lede. You used almost the exact same text in the main body.
    • Done.
  • Fix your spacing of the fort numbers in the para on the forts.
    • You're completely right. I overlooked that. Changes done.
  • Put all of the titles in English-language works in title case.
    • Done. It looks neater.
  • Add place of publication for all books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, done. Thanks for the feedback. Singora (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes

  • Singora, I take it this is your first FA nomination? If so, a belated welcome! One of the hoops we generally ask someone new to jump through is a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Unless one of the above reviewers would like to undertake that in the next couple of days, we'll list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Sturm, it looks to me like you might have undertaken a source review for formatting and reliability?
    • Let me double-check the formatting, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Lastly, Singora, you have a few duplicate links in the article. You can highlight and review these using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Singora

  • 1. Hi Ian. Yes, this is my first FA nomination. I set up this account in January to create the Singora article. I'd been researching it for about 18 months prior to that.
  • 2. RE: close paraphrasing. Yes, this was an issue. A reviewer called Casliber picked up on a sentence I'd written: "Exploring the ruins of Singora is an adventure for history and archaeology enthusiasts". This sentence was pretty much copied and pasted from the source it linked to. Casliber changed it. Yesterday I changed another sentence. I'd written that "Singora was devastated beyond recovery", which was very similar to the source. I changed it to "Singora was destroyed and abandoned".
  • 3. I've just stripped out all duplicate links.
  • 4. References. Let me help you. I'll give you what I think are the most relevant and accessible links in order that you can check things:
  • 5. If you need further help, do please let me know.

More comments from Singora. RE: references Singora (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • 1. I like this. It's tourist blurb produced by the Royal Thai Government, but it works well. See page 35 for a quick overview of Sultan Sulaiman and his family.
  • 2. This is the Thai language website for Phattalung province. Google Translate does a good job of rendering it into English. You'll see that Sultan Sulaiman, son of Dato Mogol, assigned his brother, Pharisees, to develop and strengthen the nearby town of Chai Buri. This is as per the text in my article.
  • 3. This is a link to the Thai language website for the the Royal Thai Navy. Google Translate fails with this text, but you'll see nonetheless that Admiral Siriton (former Commander of the Navy) "celebrates" being a descendant of Sultan Sulaiman.

Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified WP:MLB, WP:DODGERS, WP:SOCAL, WP:Los Angeles--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified prior FAC discussants: Indrian, Jimfbleak, Sportsguy17 (also GA reviewer), Crisco 1492, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (also PR discussant) and Beerest 2--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified PR discussant Figureskatingfan--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Notified DYK reviewer Bloom6132--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important streaks/records in baseball/sports history. I have addressed the concerns of the prior FAC (both during the prior FAC and after it) and taken the article through a PR.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note that this article has had a page move, which has fooled the tool that presents prior discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - one of my major concerns from the previous FAC was the "play-by-play tables". I understand what they are because I am familiar with baseball, but your typical reader may not understand what they are (e.g. there's no legend to what the abbreviations mean). Furthermore, there is no context given to explain why these tables are notable - are these particular innings significant because they were close calls or because of the people Hershiser had to face? What was the criteria used to select these innings versus others? To be honest, I think they all need to be removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • As with anything on WP, they were included because they were what the secondary sources were talking about. During the streak, the secondary sources have discussed certain innings as being interesting for one reason or another. I am not sure if there is any one reason why they have all been discussed in the media, but these are the innnings that have been discussed. I summarized them in table format because that is what helps me understand what happened. I was thinking that by providing tables baseball fans could have an easy glance at the interesting innings, while the prose presents similar content for the non-baseball fan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Even so, simply detailing the innings in question in tables without any explanation is rather jarring. I think prose would be perfectly suitable way to highlight them. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It seems clearer to me in table form. I will take a look at making the legend idea that you mentioned for these tables before removing them. Are you fine with the other tables (box scores and the opening table)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The other tables are great. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late comment, but the legend table seems to make for way too many tables (you've got a game-by-game table, a legend, an individual game box score, and an inning play-by-play). There is still no explanation in the article as to what the inning summary tables are, nor is there any context for their inclusion. I don't think the basic Wikipedia reader, even with a legend, will be able to understand what the tables are conveying. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • First sentence of last lead para - consider splitting into two.
  • Early in the entry, acronyms like NL and MLB are used, but the full terms are subsequently spelled out several times.
  • Innings are sometimes described in numerals (5th) and other times with words (fifth).
  • I notice that a slash is used to describe hits per at bats (0/9). I think a dash is the usual convention (0-for-9 or 0-9) - or even better, spelling out the situation for the non-fan (no hits in nine at bats).
  • September 23, 1988: A relay throw generally comes in from the outfield.
  • Same play: The LA Times called it controversial, but then said that the replay showed Butler swinging his arm at the fielder. It sounds like the right call was made on the double play, but the phrase "favorable umpire ruling" (in The streak section) makes it sound like he got a big and possibly undeserved break.
  • Really, the detail on that incident might confuse the situation for a non-fan.
    • The detail is confusing expert sportswriters who have interpreted the situation in various ways. It is a confusing play. I don't think we can expect a simple explanation of a confusing play to experts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is detailed coverage of the Oct 4 postseason game necessary since it didn't impact the streak?
    • Since he pitched 8 scoreless innings in that contest sequentially with the streak, those 8 innings have a lot of significance. Many would credit him with a 67 inning streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comparison to other streaks: As the other sections extensively refer to Drysdale's streak, this separate section seems redundant.
    • Are you saying this section is redundant with the Drysdale content in the Background or some other section. Although there are other sections that mention the Drsysdale streak, I am not sure any are very redundant with this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The fact that they played for the same team is also mentioned in the lead and Background. The umpire ruling issue is also mentioned in the lead, The streak and September 23, 1988. The Howell streak is mentioned in October 4, 1988. The fractional innings issue is touched on within September 23, 1988. Just not enough unique content to warrant its own section. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 23:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Things mentioned in both the WP:LEAD and the main body do not represent redundancy, they represent important facts. Keep in mind that the LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. I'll take a look at rearranging though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Aftermath: Bowling Greeen University - Even at that time, I think it was known as Bowling Green State University.

Good job on an entry that covers an important piece of baseball history. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 05:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A small note regarding hits per at bats: 0/9 is the usual convention I am aware of; I have never seen 0-9 used. I agree though that spelling it out would be the best approach. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mom & Me & Mom[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Maya Angelou's final (or more likely, most recent) autobiography, which she published at the age of 85. It's a little on the short side for an FA, but still eligible, and I believe, comprehensive enough. It's my personal goal to bring all of Angelou's major works, where possible, to FA-status. Thanks for the consideration, and enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why do you suggest the cover is non-free rather than PD-text/PD-ineligible? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Nikki, but I have no idea what you're talking about. (Images are not my strong suit here.) I dealt with the cover image the same as I always have. Please tell me what you want me to do. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I love how you always learn stuff here. This was the first time I had to deal with this, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Unless I've missed it, there's no mention of who published the book? It seems to be the same with Song Flung... and other Angelou biographies.—indopug (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Combination of me not understanding how to use the infobox template and depreciated parameters; not only did I fix it on this article, I went back and made the correction on her other autobiographies. I probably should make sure they're correct at Angelou's other books, too. Will do so, but later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Support nomination: The prose and presentation is very fine, and the article is rich in comprehensiveness. I don't yet see an issue that should prevent it from achieving WP:Featured article status. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Shoebox2

Tentative support. Characteristically well-written, beautifully formatted and thorough. For the most part a wonderful and eminently readable job of demonstrating enthusiasm and affection for the subject without tipping over into bias. I do have a few minor concerns prior to confirming:

  • "They briefly visited their mother in St. Louis, but at the age of eight, Angelou was raped, the rapist was killed; she felt so guilty, she chose to stop talking to everyone but Bailey." --This key moment in the synopsis feels vague and rambly. In particular, I'm not sure what the first clause has to do with the rest of the sentence, and "the rapist was killed" could stand a bit of elaboration (a revenge killing? By whom?)
Yah, that sentence could be better. I revised it by correcting the grammar error, expanding it, and separating it into two sentences: "They briefly visited their mother in St. Louis, but at the age of eight, Angelou was raped, and in retaliation, the rapist was killed by members of her family. She felt so guilty for his death, she chose to stop talking to everyone but Bailey for several years."
  • "Baxter's reaction was to run a bath; as Angelou said, "In our family, for some unknown reason, we consider it an honor to run a bath, to put in bubbles and good scents for another person" --This is a lovely little anecdote, but maybe a bit too much specific detail in a synopsis?
I dunno, I think it demonstrates an important aspect of Baxter, of her relationship with her daughter, and the dynamics of their family.
It does; it's just that it represents a rather abrupt switch from a comparatively broad overview of a relationship to a small intimate moment within it. However, on reread I can see better what you're trying to do, and have no problem letting it go. Shoebox2 talk 23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "There is a heart-breaking scene between Angelou and her brother" --"Heart-breaking", though probably true, is much too emotive for encyclopedic comfort. How about "difficult"?
Okay.
  • "Angelou's editor Robert Loomis was able to dare her into writing Caged Bird by challenging her to write an autobiography that could be considered "high art"," --"Dare her into writing" feels a bit overly informal, if not actually weasel-y. Suggest replacing with "convince her to write".
Done, but you should know that this is the exact wording in many other Angelou articles, including I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. ;)
Since you're being so kind as to humour me here, I shall magnanimously let it go in those other instances. ;)Shoebox2 talk 23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Style and genre" --This may just be my unfamiliarity with the standard format for articles on individual volumes of a book series, but there appears to be much more of a general overview of Angelou's work in this section than is needed to place this one volume into context. In particular, the paragraph outlining her writing process, in great detail, doesn't seem to have anything to do with this particular book at all?
Again, this parallels most of the other Angelou articles about her previous six autobiographies, all of which are FAs. I'm just sayin'! ;) Seriously, other lit articles do talk about an author's writing process. It can be argued that the paragraph about Angelou's writing regime doesn't fit in this article because no sources specifically state that she used it for this book, but I think that it's an appropriate assumption that if she used it for all her other books, she used it for this one. I also think it's appropriate to assume that the style and genre discussion can be applied to this book as well.
Six... Right, so you're the Angelou-autobiography-article expert and I'm more than willing to defer the point on that basis. :) Also, you make good sense. I was thinking in terms of unnecessary repetition for a reader working their way through all the articles in the series; but it's equally reasonable to consider the reader looking for information on just the one. Shoebox2 talk 23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That was a decision that was made pretty early in the development of the articles, something that other editors suggested that I do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Angelou's autobiographies conform to the genre's standard structure: they are written by a single author, they are chronological, and they contain elements of character, technique, and theme." --Given that the following paragraph specifically covers the debate over whether her books can strictly be considered autobiographies, perhaps this opening reference should be something like "Angelou's prose works (or "Angelou's memoirs") conform to the standard autobiographical structure"? Also "elements of character, technique and theme" feels extremely vague (couldn't this be said of most books?)
There are specific differences between a memoir and an autobiography, so I hesitate following your suggestion. Also, Angelou wrote essays as well, so I resist calling her autobiographies "prose works", too. The list of reasons why these books should be characterized as autobiographies are elements of the genre, so that's why it's included. IOW, I disagree with you that they're too vague.
Ah, I see now where I misread that last bit as vague, I think. It's not entirely clear that these are "elements of character, technique and theme" specific to autobiographies... at least, it wasn't clear to me. I leave it to you to decide whether that means anyone else would stumble over it, but would just suggest you consider adding "...common to the form" or similar on the end there. Shoebox2 talk 23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "in the British publication The Independent", "the London publication The Observer" --Not sure why "publication" is used here in place of the more informative "newspaper"? (And both are British--ie. national--papers, by the way.) Similarly, "British Broadcasting Corporation" can I think be safely abbreviated to the much more standard "BBC".
I think I was trying to vary the prose a bit, but I'm good with changing it as per your request. I actually agree with you about the BBC, but other reviewers told me to expand it in parallel articles, so that's why it was done here.

Shoebox2 talk 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I appreciate the fair hearing under the aforementioned expert circs. :) Am happy to now offer firm Support. One further question--such an obvious one I'm sure you've already considered it, which is why I'm not making it a further condition of support--but am still curious as to why the article doesn't include a picture of Angelou's mother? Shoebox2 talk 23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. There isn't a picture of Baxter because there isn't a free one available. But I agree that if it were available, it'd be a nice addition. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Support nomination

  • I read through it and I think it's great. My only question is whether you considered turning the Maya Angelou autobiographies into a Featured Topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that's the next destination after (or rather, if) this passes to FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Review by Quadell[edit]

I'd previously reviewed several other articles on Angelou's works, and this one is similarly complete, well-written, balanced, and organized. I made a few minor changes; feel free to revert any if you disagree. I have some suggestions and nitpicks below.

Lead:

  • Verb agreement in a few spots: "and fills in", "transitions from resentment and distrust"
Fixed.
I think I had read "transition" as a verb, but you'd meant it as a noun, so I made a minor reword to clarify. Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "discuss her life through the autobiography" sounds odd to me. I think "through autobiography" (or "through an autobiography") would work better.
Removed "the".
  • I would swap the order of the final two sentences in the lead, so that it doesn't sound like there are photos throughout the audiobook.
Duh, got it.

Background:

  • It isn't totally clear what interim is meant in the first paragraph. I would recommend removing "In the interim", though it might also work to replace it with a different prepositional phrase.
Okay, I replaced the phrase with: "In the time period between the publication of her sixth and seventh autobiographies..."
Ah, that interim. It's clear now. Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph, Sturges is quoted, but the text doesn't say who is speaking. In my opinion, it would be better as "For the first time, Angelou focuses on her relationship with her mother in this book, and fills in what reviewer Fiona Sturges calls 'possibly the final blanks in Angelou's eventful life'."
Went with your suggestion.
  • I'm confused by the meaning of the colon in the first sentence of the 4th paragraph. Does the prologue explain why she wrote the book and also how she became Maya Angelou? Or does it explain that she wrote the book in order to show how she became Maya Angelou?
  • Related to this, I can't imagine Maya Angelou not being Black and female, so it seems odd to say she became Maya Angelou despite being these things. Would it get the point across better to say "how she became, despite being poor, Black, and female, a renowned poet"?
I used her wording, but she's allowed to be poetic, while I'm not. ;) Looking at that sentence again, I can see that it's clumsy; of course, she would "begin the book with a prologue". So I changed it: "Angelou explains in the book's prologue why she wrote the book, which was to explain how she became, despite being born poor, Black, and female, a renowned author and poet."
  • In my opinion, it would be better to make the part after the semicolon into a complete sentence, as in: "the first 13 chapters are grouped into the first section"...
Did this: "The book is divided into two sections: the first 13 chapters are grouped into the first section, called "Mom & Me", and the remaining chapters make up the second section, called "Me & Mom"."

Plot summary:

  • I can't tell if Vivian Baxter was adopted by a German family, or if Baxter's unnamed Irish mother was.
Baxter's mother was, but I took the easy route and simply removed the offending phrase, since it's not all that important, anyway.
That makes sense. Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Verb agreement: "The stories Angelou relates"
Got it.
  • Consider "The stories Angelou relate include how Baxter supported her as an independent single mother, saving her life after a jealous ex-boyfriend beat her, and Baxter's initial resistance and then acceptance of her first marriage to Greek sailor Tosh Angelos". In a list, it's best if all three items are of the same grammatical structure. Here we have "how Baxter supported" (clause), "saving her life" (gerund), and "resistance" (noun). How about this? "Angelou relates several stories of Baxter, including her support of Angelou as an independent single mother, her life-saving intervention after a jealous ex-boyfriend beat Angelou, and her initial resistance and then acceptance of Angelou's first marriage to Greek sailor Tosh Angelos." (There are other ways to structure the sentence, of course, and anything is fine so long as the three items agree.)
Went with your suggestion.

(to be continued...) Quadell (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back at FAC, Quadell -- if you were planning to undertake a source review for formatting/reliability as part of your commentary, that'd be very welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I can do that, yes. Quadell (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Although I believe I read the "Style and genre" and "Critical reception" sections just as critically as I did the previous sections, I could find little to nitpick. I made a few minor changes, but found no problems worth mentioning here.

Images:

  • I find no issues.

References:

  • The References and Works cited are consistently formatted, and I could find no problems with date formats, punctuation, or dashes. The links all work, and ISBNs are all correct. All of the sources are fully reliable and of a high quality. Searching on my own, I found a few lower-quality "puff" reviews that I think were appropriately omitted, but no major sources that should have been included.
  • However, Gilespie et al.'s Celebration is fully listed in both the Works cited section and in reference 5, and should probably only have a short listing in ref 5 as it does in ref 24.
Done; I also added "et al" to ref 24.
  • I also wonder if Braxton's collection shouldn't be listed in "Works cited", with a shortened version in the references, though I admit I'm not sure the best way to do that with separate authors in the same collection.
My rule of thumb, and how I've seen it in journals, is to list a source in a "Works cited" section only if it's cited more than once. When you cite something once, even if it's from an article in a journal or collection you've already used, it's standard to cite the article separately. The source is the article, not the collection.
Okay, you didn't cite the same section more than once, so that makes sense. Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Other thoughts:

  • Are there any statistics available for how well the book sold? Amazon refers to it as a New York Times bestseller, which seems notable.
I had looked for this before, and didn't find anything reliable that gives these statistics. I just did a cursory look again, and came up with the same result. Yes, Amazon calls the book a bestseller, and so does its publisher, Random House. I didn't include either because they're not reliable. I could use The NYT's bestseller list, which states that it was 8th the week it came out, if you like.
If it's important for the completeness of an article on a book, then you should include it. I'm not sure what's standard in book FAs, so I'm sure your judgment will be better than mine. Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses. All the best, Quadell (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the review as always. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, all issues are addressed, and all criteria fulfilled. I'm glad to support. Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Warlugulong[edit]

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a small article about a very big painting. An epic description of sacred stories from Central Australia, it set a record for the price paid for Indigenous Australian art when it was bought by the National Gallery of Australia in 2007. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - For a painting that's 6m2, File:Warlugulong 1977.JPG is tiny. I can't make out any details and thought it looked like stone and moss. Wikipedia's non-free policies may limit the size of that file, but consider adding a second image showing zoomed in details, highlighting one of the stories. - hahnchen 13:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Photography is prohibited in the gallery, and I have not located any close-up images. The image here is at the same resolution as the National Gallery uses in its online collection image. I sympathise with the problem, but I have no solution at this point. :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Click on the zoom button... - hahnchen 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Odd, i thought i did that but only got a larger version at same resolution. You are correct. I'll work on this... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, had a go at that. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you actually just photograph your screen? Use the print screen function, copy it into paint, crop it and save it as PNG. You should get higher quality and lower resolution. - hahnchen 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If I could, I would do that, but my 'print screen' function doesn't work (never has - I don't know why), and 'print to file' appears prevented by the host site (doubtless some sort of nifty copyright control). hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Hahnchen for sorting out the close-up image. All good. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Miegunyah Press or The Miegunyah Press?
  • Be consistent in where you include state: once Melbourne has it, the next time it doesn't
  • FN15: page? Also, that parenthetical probably shouldn't be italicized
  • It was an online article and I had omitted the link. I've fixed that. I'm pretty sure the parenthetical part should remain italicised as it is the title of that edition / part of the newspaper in question, but will take further guidance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Found.

Thanks Nikki! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment My preferences show Hidden categories, revealed as including: "Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters", and "CS1 errors: dates". Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Johnbod, i don't what those things mean or how to address them - for example, i don't know how to determine if a template parameter is deprecated or what the preferred alternative is - and i don't know how to view hidden categories. Any pointers? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You can turn on the ability to view hidden categories via Preferences (see here for directions). Being able to access those categories may help you address those parameter and CSI date issues (though not having a real understanding of their purpose or effect on an article's quality, I'm not sure if they're really things that you would need to fix. I'll leave that up to the other reviewers). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ruby. Having read this, i was able to identify the deprecated cite template parameters and fixed them. My hunch is that the "CS1 errors: dates" message may be a false positive - I can find no parameter errors or deprecated template terms in the article that relate to dates. But I also can't get rid of the bloody message. Hopefully someone else will come up with something...hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't loose sleep over this, but maybe leave a request for assistance on the HIDDENCAT talk. Ceoil (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
...Indigenous men at Papunya, in Australia's western desert, began... - these subordinate bits I often put in between mdashes, just to break up a whole slew of commas.
Sometimes agree, but don't think this phrase is an appropriate candidate for such dashes, as it isn't the sort of 'additional side observation' that best suits that punctuation.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
can we link "synthetic polymer paint" to something?
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Lungkata is italicised and unitalicised....also is it worth a redlink as a significant spirit/being?
Unitalicised the one instance where it had been, for some reason. Line ball on the latter. I'm probably inclined not to. Ive seen the term in three contexts: this painting by Clifford Possum, the middle name of another notable artist, and a walk in Uluru NP. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Overall, the article is pretty small and this might indeed be all we can get that is citeable - if there were any interviews where the artist had discussed the owrk or any more analysis of the themes in the painting (colours chosen/whatever), that would be good to add. However it is engagingly written and I can't see much wrong prosewise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added this and this and have ordered a book from the library that i don't think i have yet checked, to see if i come up with anything further. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking better. A couple of other things..discussions of the themes seems a touch sparse but maybe nothing more exists to cite, so I suspect what we have fulfils comprehensiveness.....?
OK, i have checked two books that arrived, and one did allow me to add some significant material: the diff is here. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I presume the painting is on display in canberra....you haven't actually said. Has it been loaned anywhere?
Somewhat to my surprise, I couldn't find anything that says it is on permanent display, though i believe it to be. Certainly it is currently on display on level one, as the NGA website shows, but it doesn't specify that this is permanent, so there didn't seem much point in saying more than what the article currently specifies: that the work is in the NGA collection. I'm not aware of it having been loaned and the NGA text does not indicate that it has.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, unless I am missing something, the article as it stands now does not say the NGA has it on display, only that it has bought it....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, tweaked. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise looking on target on prose, pending reolution of comprehensiveness queries...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Comment Why is "Indigenous" capitalised throughout? It's not derived from a proper noun like "French" or "Afro-Caribbean", it's not followed by capitalised nouns (so we get "Indigenous men", which looks odd), it's not even restricted to this use. You can have "indigenous (sic) Fijians", even indigenous plants and animals Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the standard usage in Australia, when referring to the indigenous people of this country. See for example this from Sydney Uni or this from the Australian National University; for an example of the capitalised usage, from an Australian government website, see here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I couldn't see anything else, changed to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

Nominator(s): Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Tadeusz Kościuszko a Polish revolutionary hero who also fought in the American Revolution. It was nominated for FA before and had wide support, but because a couple of minor issues came up, and the discussions dragged on, the nomination didn't make it. All issues have long since been resolved, imo. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO[edit]

  • Cleaned up more than a dozen overlinks. I tend to ignore the first instance of a link after the introduction, but eliminate them after that. There may be a few examples of unnecessary links but nothing major popped out.
Thanks Mongo. If the topic is an important one I'll usually link it more than once if it occurs in a separate section, but usually not in two consecutive sections. I also try to stay away from links in the lede unless the topic is a key topic to the subject of the article. In any case, discretion is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Going through editing history since the close of the last FAC effort on October 12, 2013...and will see if issues have been adjusted. Edit history since seems to indicate that one issue, that of stability, is no longer an issue. Will have further to add in next few days.--MONGO 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Currently engaged in last review and some minor copyediting which I hope to finish late today..my edits aren't in stone and may need further adjustments.--MONGO 15:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support...I've made a number of recent edits most of which are just tweaks and minor MOS related adjustments. An important article that covers all the bases and worthy of being rated as Featured Article. Congrats to all those instrumental in bringing this complex article to this level.--MONGO 20:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Herb_Roch_III.svg: what is the source and copyright status of the original work?
  • Not required, but would be helpful to translate non-English descriptions like that of File:Музей-усадьба_Т._Косцюшки....JPG
  • File:Tadeusz_Kośiuszko_during_battle_of_Racławice.PNG is not the same as shown in the source - were edits made to the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It means I set the white/grey/black levels more appropriately. The initial upload had a blue tinge. (Hohum @) 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just noticed the original file at the source link was different to the first upload. I've uploaded that one, and then provided a colour balanced version which doesn't have the blurred sky (and top of his hat), and less blowout of highlights. It does have more muted colours than we had previously though. (Hohum @) 11:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
For those who didn't know: The new version is a marked improvement. I've uploaded hundreds of images and often times I've edited a given image beforehand. i.e. enlarge, enhance color, adjust tone, enhance clarity if needed, etc. If the original file is eligible for use here at WP, making graphic improvements isn't anything that will change that. Nice work Hohum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes and tweaks[edit]

I've been making some minor adjustments in a few of the citations, moving source info from text/markup to the Bibliography, adding some ref links, etc. The citations themselves remain the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support This is clearly a well-written article and I think it should be promoted to FA status. 23 editor (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • brigadier general Arthur St. Clair capitalize his rank. Suggest a link to all ranks on first use.
  • transfer to battle duty with the Southern Army battle duty? How about combat? Is there a link to Southern Army and is that it's formal name? Or should that be rephrased to forces in the southern theater or somesuch?
  • Was the Commonwealth's military structured something like that of the later Austro-Hungarian Army with separate components for Poland and Lithuania? Because otherwise, He asked for a transfer to the Lithuanian army makes no sense to me. And army should be capitalized there as a proper noun.
    • Not sure how apt te comparison to AHA is, but there were separate armies, under separate commanders, see hetmans of Poland and Lithuania. Pl wiki has separate entries on pl:Armia koronna and which I may translate at some point; see also Army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I am not seeing any good sources for a detailed explanation (GBooks search for "armia koronna" "armia litewska" does confirm the terms are often used to indicate two related but separate entities but I am not seeing any sources for defining them outside OR at least not right without searching further). I hope this answers the question but ping me if you'd like to discuss this further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not really relevant for this article, but I did a double-take when I read the mention of the Lithuanian Army. Somehow the reader needs to be given the information that there were two armies so he's not taken by surprise like I was.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • When the Prince had become Commander-in-Chief of the entire Polish (Crown) Army on May 3, 1792, Kościuszko had been given command of a division near Kiev Delete "had" both times that it's used.
  • concentrated army group delete "group"
  • How could the caption be correct for the Philadelphia house be correct if he didn't arrive in the US until 1797?
  • The reference to his crippled condition was a complete surprise. Provide some context for this.
  • Is the image of the US stamp free for use? We tried to use on the article on the USS Monitor and it was disallowed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed caption date.
  • Kościuszko's "crippled condition" is explained in the preceding section. (Add : Changed wording: ...still in his wounded condition ...)
  • Stamps are in the public domain. The stamp image used in the USS Monitor article was a post 1978 issue and had "critical commentary" issues per NFCC policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes

  • Gwillhickers, I think this would be your first FA nomination? If so I'd like a reviewer to conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If no-one above would like to undertake that in the next couple of days we'll list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Ditto source review for formatting and reliability (which is generally required for every FAC).
  • Finally, I noticed a few duplicate links. You can highlight and review these using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Though I am not the primary author of this article, and though it hasn't changed much since your last visit/review, I'd welcome a spot check.
  • Am not familiar with this script's usage/installation. If you know of any dup links, feel free to delete as necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a link for Thomas Jefferson in the lede and one in the Later life section. Since this involves the lede and a section that is a good length away I believe the 2nd link is allowed, and convenient for the readers also. Will be willing to zap this one if you feel it's necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Slammiversary (2008)[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an event held in June 2008. It is the sixth anniversary show of TNA's. A man died after the event while cleaning up the arena. I have two PPV articles from 2008 already achieve FA status and I'm trying to get all 12 there. This is my 4th attempt at getting a 2008 event to FA. I tried with Sacrifice 08 a couple of times but it never worked out. I'll be trying with it again after this one, but I figured I might as well try with a new one first. Any comments are appreciated.--WillC 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll review another FA nomination in turn for a review on this article.--WillC 09:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Small fixes[edit]

  • Does "After the event..." in the lead deserve its own paragraph? Not sure why it is lumped together with the 'reception' stuff in the lead.
    • Not really about reception, covers all events after the event. The buyrate, things it is remembered for, the reception, and the death of someone. Someone dieing as a result of the event is pretty important but that line pretty much covers are necessary information.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also in the lead (and in the article) "Six Woman Tag Team match" and in the article "Special Guest Ringside Enforcer", "Tag Team match" and "Ten Woman TNA Knockouts Makeover Battle Royal" -> remove capital letters?
    • They are match types and special titles. They are important and should be capital since that is how they are promoted. I would understand on tag team match, but it is like that to be uniform with all match titles. Plus it looks neater than 10 woman knockout makeover battle royal, special guest ringside enforcer, etc. These were things the events were promoted on. Nash being Special Guest Ringside Enforcer for this match was used later on in the storylines so it was more than just a random unimportant action.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The predominate storyline -> predominant?
    • Either works, they have nearly the same definition.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reading the reception section, I thought you could afford to expand it a bit more. Mainly more of Keller's comments on the main event.
    • He didn't have alot to say. I'll look into it again.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I added another line regarding Keller, all I could do with him. Switched out the Sun stuff with Caldwell of the Torch.--WillC 07:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Accident section - "TNA released a statement the next day on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter." Is mentioning "on behalf of TNA President Dixie Carter" relevant? Also, I think that you would be better off using the quote like in NXT Arrival#Aftermath. "TNA released a statement the next day" -> quote -> "The June 12 episode"... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • From the source. Said that was the purpose of the release, was on Carter's behalf and not the promotion. That table distracts too much from the purpose of the section. Makes itself the main point.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately for you and the article, due to the Sun's greedy "pay for reading or read only the first line" policy, that content is no longer verifiable. Click the source if you don't know what I'm talking about. What are you going to do about that? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Ahh crap, I guess I'll remove it. I left that over from the previous revision when it passed GA. I figured it was still good. I liked the sun additions, made the articles look more professional. I'll wait and see if I can find the release through someone else. I probably can.--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Switched it with an article from the Fight Network.--WillC 07:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You explain dark match... the second time it appears in the body, not the first. Should dark match even appear in the lead? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Lead shouldn't have explanations, it distracts from the purpose of a summary. Dark match was on the card of the event. Promoted? Not really but still took place at the show.--WillC 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The first time "dark match" appears in the body, not the lead, is in the Storylines section. You explained "dark match" later in the Event section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed that. Removed dark match and switched it with pre-show in the disclaimer. Too much of an explanation for that area. Kept the explanation in the event with the first mention of the term, besides the lead of course.--WillC 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Aftermath section - first paragraph first line - remove "still"? Also, first paragraph second line isn't sourced - the source is for the first line.
    • Done, I had the still in there because I mention the concerns in the Storylines section. I was trying to stay consistent.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Event section - Miscellaneous subsection - "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" sounds totally weird to me. How about "Besides those who wrestled a match"?
    • You may be on to something here. However, I'm not sure that explains the whole purpose. I'm trying to include everyone. Even people involved in the matches through interference. There may be a middle ground to be found here though.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I know you're trying to include everyone, I'm not advocating taking out any names. I just think that the phrasing "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role" is wrong. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Done with a tweak.--WillC 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Event section and Results section - Roode was the next to qualify after bashing a ladder Cage held with a chair and then pinning Cage. and Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair. - I think that after the "with a chair"s, you should insert "into Cage". It appears that Roode just bashed a ladder. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • You are correct. He actually hit a ladder. He had no direct contact with Cage. In fact, I'm not even sure the ladder ran into Cage.--WillC 07:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I hit up YouTube for highlights, Christian was pressing his face against the ladder like it was Trish Stratus. Roode pinned Cage after hitting a ladder Cage held with a chair into Cage. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Done with a tweak.--WillC 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay lastly, the pictures need improvement. I don't like LAX or Styles' pictures. You could use a better Styles picture, maybe this one. Since there aren't any better LAX pictures, I recommend adding a Petey picture. I think one of this or this will work. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd change the AJ picture if a good one is presented that appears better than the one currently, but using a Williams picture is a no since his match didn't get any build leading up to and was mostly ignored. LAX overrules there since they were the undercard match and thus should be presented over Williams.--WillC 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I also must consider licenses and the Styles picture above does exactly have the greatest copyright info and appears to not even be on commons, thus causing more problems.--WillC 17:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Huh? The Styles pocture is on Commons. It was taken by Tabercil, an admin here (and on Commons) who has a history of taking pro wrestling photos.
      • What do you mean LAX "were the undercard match"? Petey was also in an undercard match, and his match was even longer than LAX's. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I was looking at the wrong Styles picture. My bad. Williams match was added to the card right before the event. Really had no build while the LAX match had nearly 2 months of build and thus was more important. I feel it should be presented since it was a main contest, over the X Title match. I changed the Styles picture though.--WillC 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Okay, all should be fine now; just saying I went to crop the LAX and Styles pictures. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just link right to the observer article? It also contains some things missed in the article. --124.178.179.118 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What?--WillC 04:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Wrestlinglover. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V is a 2013 video game, and the latest entry into the culturally significant Grand Theft Auto series. The game's five year development cycle was one of the biggest undertakings in the industry, and the game was subject to enormous hype. It shattered records for the entire entertainment industry and is on track to be the best-selling video game ever. I've worked on this article a great deal over the past six months. Having just culled down Reception and split Development off, I feel the article is well-written and, importantly, at a readable length which is why I feel it qualifies as FAC. CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment I just looked at the Controversy section, which can be significantly trimmed. The text often loses focus from the subject at hand. For eg, "Helen Lewis of The Guardian felt Petit's observations were valid, but were stigmatised by gamers who have become 'hyper-sensitive to criticism' " has little to do with GTA V but rather is about an article that criticised it. Another thing is: are those Forbes articles reliable? They're by Forbes "contributors"; basically anybody can become one, and you get paid by the number of hits you generate. I doubt there's any fact-checking etc.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Forbes are used three times in the article. The first reference (#74) is used to support the claim that the game outsold analyst expectations. Dave Thier's bio states that he is a freelance writer - that may be a problem, although his bio also states that his work has been reused by a number of RS. Going off the bio of Eric Kain (#122), he seems much more usable. I'd put Paul Tassi (#125) on par with Thier, but he can easily go as his article is only used in response to another. So I'll let you decide based on their individual merits which, if any, we can keep. Now, I think the whole controversy-within-a-controversy over Petit's review is a mentionable thing, because her comments, and the response to them, really instigated the whole "misogyny?" discussion. CR4ZE (t) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
On a side note, the merge tag at the top of the page shouldn't be a problem for the article. Since the debate's been open for nearly two months, I yesterday asked at the WikiProject and Admin Noticeboard for closure. Because of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)'s content (not much to stand on its own two feet in my opinion), whatever the result of the discussion won't impact this article's content, although I invite anybody to go ahead and close the discussion off as we go forward with the FAC. CR4ZE (t) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
By chance, the use of Forbes is currently being discussed at WT:VG/RS. The current consensus is that the staff are reliable, but the contributors might not be. You already have reliable sources for the $800M and gamer-misogyny lines, you don't need Forbes. And for a defense of the torture sequence, you should try Tom Bissell[72] or Tom Chick[73]. - hahnchen 04:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Upon further consideration I think the Thier's piece, which we're using to support the claim about the analyst, is a situational okay. I think the key difference is that Kain's and Tassi's work here are opinion pieces about the game's controversy, and I'll happily take them out and replace them upon Hahnchen's recommendation. Now Thier on the other hand is examining the sales GTA V posted on its first day against Arvind Bhatia's estimations. That's objective reporting; comparing one fact against another. So it really becomes a question about Bhatia... Well, I think given IGN is quoting him, it shouldn't be looked at any differently if Forbes is. CR4ZE (t) 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Forbes' contributor pieces do not have editorial oversight, that in this case, they happen to be correct does not mean they're the best sources available. You already have the Reuters source, Variety can back up Bhatia's estimate. - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Even though that's a subjective comment, if there's a better source available I'll happily replace it. CR4ZE (t) 07:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I have now added Bissell's and Chick's pieces into the Controversy section. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't be thoroughly reviewing this article because I haven't properly played the game (release it on PC damnit!) Just a quick thing I noticed, there's no mention of microtransactions at all, despite it generating half of TTWO's digital revenue in the last quarter. That 70% of players have played online might be worth noting in the reception too.[74][75] - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
There was a paragraph on GTA Online, but it got moved to the development article when I decided to split it. I can copy the paragraph over to here again? And add that note in Sales perhaps? Does the article need this? CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It does not need the Allianz quote, it's a piece of trivia fluff for Allianz marketing. If it got picked up by secondary sources, it might be worthy of inclusion, but I doubt it.
GTA Online redirects to Grand Theft Auto V. The development sub-article is not where readers would go to find information on GTA Online. While details of the online component's development would sit in the development subarticle, its gameplay, revenue model and reception should not. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I have inserted a new section into Reception titled "Multiplayer launch", and have written up a paragraph summarising the reviews I was able to collate. Now I need to make a few points here. Firstly, four of the five reviews in the table are considered 100% RS. Destructoid is situational depending on the writer, and in this case Chris Carter is an editor who is also "Reviews Director". The Polish review, GRYOnline.pl, is considered RS. I felt it was necessary to have this one because of the lack of RS to add to the table; the alternative is to add GamesMaster's review, but it's a print medium I don't have, so I can't supply author name, publisher etc. Finally, I have included publication dates in the table. This is because, given the nature of GTA Online's launch, the date of the publication is just as, if not, more important than the review score. Reviews were clearly impacted by the launch issues, so I think it's important the table includes dates next to scores. CR4ZE (t) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll add too that I'm not going to add the Metro article about GTA Online's revenue to the article, because it is sourced from NeoGAF. CR4ZE (t) 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Can understand why the Metro piece isn't good enough. The MCV piece might still be worth a mention, I also spotted that Bhatia's estimates for GTA Online were picked up too.[76] You could link those two pieces together in a sentence summing up GTA Online's sales. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Added some post-release information for GTA Online. Not sure if Bhatia's estimations need to be mentioned though. CR4ZE (t) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is no mention of the music or the soundtrack in the reception. Its the first GTA to have an original score, this is important. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
When I collated reviews while writing Reception, I really only found Destructoid's review gave mention to the sound design. I have inserted it into one of the paragraphs, because I don't know if I have enough for a full one. CR4ZE (t) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty more that could be said about the soundtrack. Both IGN and Gamespot touch on it, but what you really need is the Edge review in print (Issue 259). There's a page long post script about the series' music. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been able to get a small paragraph out of those handful of quotes. I have tried unsuccessfully to find scans of the Edge review online. I'd happily buy it, but it wouldn't arrive in my mailbox for a few weeks. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Pinging User:X201 who may have a copy of that issue. I do have a copy of that issue, but it's in storage and I won't be able to get at it until April. You can also just buy the digital version. - hahnchen 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I've got it, will sort out a way to get the info to Craze. - X201 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
All good. I bought it. Will write something up tomorrow. CR4ZE (t) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Query. This game has only bee out for about six months. It will, at some point, presumably have an impact and a legacy, which is what an encyclopaedia should be evaluating. Is it not a bit too early to have a 'finished' encyclopaedia article? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • We have featured articles on living people who's legacy is sure to grow. While an unreleased game has too much left in the air, a game that has been released and appraised is enough for a featured article in my opinion. - hahnchen 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No Wikipedia article is ever complete. Dishonored is likely to pass even without a Legacy section, because the article is complete with the information available now with no obvious omissions. Inevitably, yes, we'll probably have to add a Legacy section, but that doesn't stop the article from being finished with the content that's presented at present. CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*not now too early, it has yet to be released on PC, and the game has only been out for 6 months. i forsee some pretty significant changes to the article. a Featured Article should be fairly stable in terms of content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good reason. You're making presumptions based on future events that haven't happened yet. Has the PC version been announced yet? No. When it does, how exactly do you consider that the article will go under "significant change"? Are we going to have to rewrite the entire article because of a port to another platform? I bet not. The article has remained structurally the same since the successful GAN, except that the readability has been improved with a split Development and culled Reception. I'd say it was stable at the GAN and has remained so since then. CR4ZE (t) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, stating that the article could go under "significant change," (and stating that this should prevent the promotion of the article to FAC) simply based on your own personal theories on the direction of the game development, is potentially WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
perhaps. I don't mean that it's a bad article. i guess you are right, rockstar, for whatever reason, has been completely silent about the PC release. i did make an assumption, based on the fact that GTA4 was released on pc, and that the PC market is quite large. however, in retrospect, i really don't see why it should stop a FAC. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Over a week now and no new comments. Surely there are more editors interested in conducting a review. CR4ZE (tc) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. High quality prose and grammar. Mr*|(60nna) 07:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Is Quarter to Three a reliable source?
  • Likewise with NintendoEverything – I've heard of it, but it was seen as iffy in Pokémon Channel's FAC. Here, it draws from a Famitsu source; it'd be nice if you found and cited that.
  • Reception (the non-subsection part) may still be bordering on too long. The points all seem well-supported enough for inclusion – perhaps too much, as I think you could cut out some of the details and redundant quotes.
  • "Depiction of torture" consists of one very long paragraph. Split it somewhere.
  • The article looks fine otherwise. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Quarter to Three is Tom Chick's website, and given his reputation in the field he should be okay to use. Hahnchen can probably give a better justification if need be.
  • I did some searching for a replacement for Nintendo Everything, and the only RS I found was VG247, but even then the statement in the prose is different to what is available via VG247 as they appear to be citing a different part of the Famitsu article. Not to mention the fact that the article is sourced from NeoGAF and NintendoLife, which to me comes across as sloppy. I've removed the information. Famitsu appears to be hard to get online, and even if I got it... I don't speak Japanese, so there's no point. It's information more relevant to the Japanese Wikipedia anyway.
  • It's possible to cite Japanese articles; I do it all the time. Some browsers have auto-translators; if not I'm sure you could Google Translate it to get a basic idea. Nevertheless, if you don't want to add it you don't have to, since GTAV is a Western game and this is the English Wikipedia.
  • I disagree. It's been cut down a fair bit, but with a game covered as widely in the media as this, a good-size reception section is kind of necessary. The only way I could see it being cut down even further is if we removed the second paragraph, the one about GTA V being this generation's magnum opus. However, take into consideration Dishonored, which recently passed FAC with a reception section at 1,243 words, and look at that in context with GTA V's slightly shorter 1,111 words. I'm not trying to use WP:WAX, but my point is that for some games, the wide scope of the reviews sometimes necessitates a lengthy reception section and cutting it down too much might not give the reader all the appropriate information they could get. Excepting its development, a game's reception is the most important thing to cover in a WP article.
  • That's fair. I ought to be less knee-jerk about that.
  • Paragraph is now split in two. CR4ZE (tc) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Support; my issues have all been addressed. Nice work! Before the large amount of work on GTAV and related articles, I assumed the GTA task force had been pretty much abandoned. Tezero (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • That the game was published by Rockstar isn't cited in the article, nor is the "fifteenth" part
  • "Off-mission, ": "missions" needs explanation before introducing "off-mission"
  • general tip to use shorter words and conserve syllables wherever possible to make sentences easier (allow → let/put, utilize → use)
  • "freely roam the state's countryside": is it the state's or the city's countryside? Seemed more like the latter to me
  • "Players control the three lead protagonists simultaneously": would be better to say that the story for all three happens concurrently and that the player swaps player-characters at will rather than introduce the idea that one controller does three things at once. This ¶ can be a bit more precise
  • {{Infobox video game}} uses |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous—not sure it is in this case
  • producer/designer/etc. credits should be sourced and mentioned in the article
  • I don't think the list of Rockstar subsidiaries belongs in the infobox per the |developer= param description
  • I highly recommend list-defined refs for the future—makes editing much easier for copyeditors
  • First ¶ of Gameplay is out of order—the specific health and law mechanics should follow the basic overview of gameplay: action-adventure, how the characters are controlled, you shoot things, you interact with things, etc. HUD stuff might be best for its own ensuing paragraph. This is to say that "In combat, auto-aim..." jumped into "combat" when the reader doesn't know combat means gunfight here. Similarly, "its halfway point"—halfway of what? What is an "illegal act" or a "mission" (not necessarily a definition, but what does it mean in this game)? These are solid questions for people who know little about video games but want to read about the fastest selling entertainment of all time
  • Try to reduce the semicolons, which are awkward
  • Em dashes aren't spaced, en dashes can be (when used as an em dash)
  • I'll pause here for now since your Gameplay edits might alter the whole section
  • Note geographic parenthetical comma use in MOS:COMMA—it's tricky

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar  11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Rockstar, actually, have been cited. Each of the first two sentences in Development cover both Rockstar Games and Rockstar North with reliable sources giving direct mentions. As for the game being the fifteenth entry, I can't find a reliable source for this. All I get is this, which isn't a fantastic choice. It isn't really an objectionable statement, however I can just remove it instead.
  • I've made the gameplay paragraph in the lead a little more precise now.
  • What's interesting about the media field is that the game had to be shipped on two Xbox 360 discs but only one PS3 disc. Rockstar had to put out an announcement reassuring gamers that there wouldn't be any differences between the versions. Wouldn't that be a mentionable thing? It's covered in a little more depth in the "Overview" section of the Development sub-article. Have a read first before I remove the |media= field.
  • Producer/designer again falls into the category of facts that got moved into the Development page upon the split. I can recycle the citations into the Infobox?
  • That could be true for most games, which is what the Infobox is designed to cover, but how many games can you name that required a core development team plus seven studios split between the UK and the US, and the manpower of at least 1,000 people? I can cite the fact that the game required all that widespread effort, but I can't seem to cite each separate studio's contributions unless you're okay with the game credits as a source. But if you still think the list can go I'll take it out.
  • There are lots of list-defined refs once you get down to the Awards, but it's an editorial preference anyway. You should turn the wikEd gadget on if it bothers you.
  • Added "meter" after "health" and reworded "illegal acts" to "crimes". I'm trying to think of a better way to describe what a "mission" is because any synonymous terms are even more confusing. Can't say I agree completely on the organisation but I'm looking into it. The thing is, we need to give the reader insight into the basic action gameplay mechanics immediately, before we get into the character-switching and the open world design. By the time they get to "In combat, auto-aim..." readers are already aware that there is combat, because the second sentence explains that players use guns and stabby things to kill people. Same for the Wanted system, which needs to be explained ASAP because it's a major underlying mechanic of the game. Now, what I could do is keep all those basic mechanics in the first paragraph, then trim bits from the others into a new second paragraph thoroughly explaining the open world design. Getting into the way the single-player story/switching works first before all that would be very disorganised.
  • The most grammatical correct way to introduce a "for example" is to put a semi-colon there. Other semi-colons are gone.
  • User:Czar, ping. CR4ZE (tc) 08:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Rockstar cites, I meant the whole list of Rockstar NYC etc. from the infobox (I mentioned this above, re: subsidiaries). IBT ref works for me (though it may be citogenesis). I think the infobox media can go—if it's not worth mentioning in the article, is it worth mentioning in the infobox? "Roam" is used twice in the lede. Putting refs in the infobox when the item's not mentioned in the article is totally fine. If it's worth mentioning the transnational dev split, it should go in the prose (not the infobox and definitely not infobox-only). I'm not contending for a total reorg of the Gameplay, just threw out an idea. It does, however, need to read so someone such as my hypothetical person can pick up the article and understand it, which means situating the early, unavoidable jargon. Slogging through the rest now czar  04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: the transnational development is already mentioned in the appropriate section, Development. The source used doesn't give mention to each individual studio, so I have commented out the "Additional work" field in the infobox to run this by you. I can use the game credits to cite the development studios. Otherwise they can just remain hidden. I removed the second "roam" in the lede. I cited each individual producer/designer/etc, although I can't help but feel like the infobox looked nicer without citations there... Meh...it's either that, or mention them in the Development section, which I'd rather avoid because I'm trying to keep Development as short as possible. Though you weren't requiring that I do it, I have reorganised the Gameplay section and explained the open world design first with a little bit more detail. Do you prefer how it's arranged now? CR4ZE (tc) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh and the IBT ref came across to me as citogenesis as well, which is why I was bit uneasy about using it. CR4ZE (tc) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Czar has not yet responded to a ping to evaluate my response. CR4ZE (tc) 03:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It's hard for me to contribute during the week. I'll continue over the weekend, but don't let me hold up the review czar  03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth incorporating the individual dev team leads into the article, but you know the sources better than me. I usually work them in by way of quotes that credit them as "lead writer X". Gameplay reads much better, but I just gave it an edit as I read (as far as I could muster—the in-prose refs, British English, and lack of serial comma throw me off) and I cut out nearly a kB. The whole article can use this treatment, especially considering its current length. There are a few things I see contributing to its distracting verbosity: repeating the game's italicized name instead of saying "the game", lots of "the x of y" constructions where "y's x" could work, long descriptions that are best said as a single word or two, and ideas repeated in adjacent clauses that should be altogether recast as a single or two separate sentences. (The ce link above shows a few examples of each.) I know that in my own writing, I tend to shove too much stuff into a sentence and then have trouble seeing how to fit in everything I want. Instead of making Frankenstein sentences, I see what idea I'm trying to build around (the "cancer" of my sentence) and then recast the sentence around a different idea. Anyway, I feel this prose could use more concision for better flow. It's very long, so would you like to give it a try? I might slog through it, but I don't have much free time for intensive copyediting. czar  20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've trimmed down a couple of things, namely some additional critical reviews that were commented out in the table that wasted 2,000 bytes of data. I'll consider working the dev team key people into the prose, but I want to keep that Development section as short as possible. Regardless, it shouldn't hinder the article's featured candidacy. I think as you go down you'll find the prose a little clearer in the Development/Reception/Controversies sections. I've read through these sections many times over and I personally can't find too many ways to make cut-downs. It would need a fresh pair of eyes. I have made some small cuts in Development. The length of the article might seem long, but there's only so much we can do considering the scope of the game in news sources etc. Basically, I'd encourage you to give a run-through and make some final cuts yourself, because this candidate has been open for over a month now and it needs closing soon. CR4ZE (tc) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Lede says Los Santos is based on LA, but that ref was recently removed from the prose
  • Nice plot (saved me the trouble of finishing the game). This said, was there no way to source it? I know you don't "need to", but it would have been worth it for posterity (when the vandals come)
  • "that was meant for Michael instead" → "marked for Michael": clarify this—was it a plot reserved for him or where he was "buried" such that he could start a new life?
  • Plot could do more to explain that Trevor is batshit crazy
  • Usually people are referenced by their surnames—I'm assuming Michael, Trevor, Franklin are called as such because that's how it's done during the game?
  • "Franklin is pressured by Haines": this is a big deal—needs a few more words. Pressured?
  • Do you care about the serial comma? I think it makes things clearer. The prose has been omitting them, but I just removed one from the plot for consistency

More to come czar  02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Added the source back in.
  • My understanding is that when writing about fiction, you need to source claims about plot threads that not every player may encounter on an initial playthrough. As such, the only parts of the plot that really required citing were the three different endings, which I've done.
My understanding about WAF is that plots were allowed to be unreffed (to cast aside WP:V) since it's really hard to source for some subjects. I was saying that I think this plot is covered so well that reffing it wouldn't be an issue
  • Looks like your copy-edit covered that.
I'm not familiar with anything more than the basic plot, so I was guessing about the purpose of the grave
  • The plot's currently sitting at 769 words, which is already slightly over our target of 700. The idea of a plot section is to give an overview as concisely written as possible. As such, we've mostly kept it to key plot points throughout the game, and there's lots of threads that have been omitted, such as (spoilers) Michael performing odd-jobs for a Vinewood producer, the kidnapping of Michael's family, Trevor's initial business deal with the Chengs etc. I just don't see how getting into more of Trevor's story is going to help readers understand the plot.
Doesn't need his story. One or two adjectives would introduce his characteristics that were later called out in specific in the Reception section
  • Most of the characters are referred to by their first names (Michael is often called "Townley", and Steve Haines is almost always just "Haines"). But I think the way that's it's been approached is that Michael, Franklin and Trevor are the characters you actually control, so for the sake of consistency between Gameplay/Plot they're always on a first-name basis.
  • I emphasised the imperative of Franklin being forced to choose Michael's and Trevor's fates a little more. Check my wording, and if you want a little more detail I'll go back and replay the mission to add a little more. If I can remember, Haines wants Trevor dead because of the fact that he's batshit crazy, and Weston, I think, wants Michael dead because he's been screwed over. Something like that...
It's more that why do the FIB agents have such a hold over Franklin that he'd be forced to make this call? As it stands, it says he received a phone call and has to make a choice. The group is so tight and they have been against the FIB agents for so long, why would listening be imperative? (Rhetorical question, answer in prose)
  • Here's the thing with the serial comma. Our MOS allows either its inclusion or omission as long as whichever choice is consistent throughout the prose. Now the article strictly adheres to British English, and every British English style guide I can recall recommends against it. There's advantages and disadvantages to it. As long as the usage is consistent, it shouldn't matter. If it's your editorial preference to use it, use it in articles with American English. CR4ZE (tc) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
My feeling was that it would be helpful in long articles such as these where it could be used a dozen times. I'm still not sure if you're for or against it, so I left it as is.
  • "the open world space, where preliminary models were rendered in the game engine": Models of what? cl
  • "Production of the game world demanded field research trips": demanded? (would be easy to add Los Santos back here)
  • A bit of overuse of "considered"
  • "The team viewed the game as a spiritual successor": Did they view GTA V as the successor or idea of the project? Like, was it that the GTA sequel qua GTA sequel had to inherit the qualities of the other work, or was it just an opportunity to make their next game contain multitudes?
  • "and considered how they could innovate": How did this consideration work? In planning?
  • "Michael is forced by FIB government": forced how? be more specific
  • "a Triad": I don't think this construction makes sense. Members of the Triad? A branch of the Triad, perhaps?
  • Might want to explain that Trevor's reunion with Michael wasn't with vengeance (maybe he thought he was dead?)
  • "Rockstar collaborated with several retail outlets to provide special edition releases": needs more info—what was different about them, generally?
  • "Rockstar also ran a viral marketing strategy with a website": was it Rockstar or another ad company?
  • I know you said you looked this over, but I killed a ton of gerunds in this section alone. Avoid "-ing" constructions where possible, as they're overused
  • Clarified.
  • Looks like you clarified that.
  • It's used twice.
Not throughout the article, and I already changed a couple
  • Uh...still not sure what the issue is? The sentence explains that they considered the game a spiritual successor to their previous games...
I was asking about the rest of the sentence—I didn't quote the whole thing
  • Refined.
  • Refined.
  • True. Though your edit exacerbated things by removing the mention of Wei Cheng, who is one of the main antagonists.
I'm not sure Cheng's mention is vital to the plot section when the Triad is already there
  • I wrote a little clarification there but I'm not sure how it sounds (really tired at the moment). I'll come back to it later and see if it needs rephrasing.
  • Added mention of the additional content that came with pre-orders, although it's not an exhaustive explanation for concision purposes.
  • It was Rockstar.
  • K. CR4ZE (tc) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to just respond that the bullets are acknowledged or were changed instead of responding individually. And editing while tired may not be a good idea if it makes you snippy czar  15:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

More to come czar  02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "Critical acclaim" can be a controversial phrase. Now, all of games, GTA V may deserve it, but I'd still quote it as a phrase from a RS where possible.
  • I'd move the mention of the games it ranks behind to footnote notes—it's more trivia than essential to the (long) Reception section
  • I didn't see PSU.com on the WP:VG/RS list—might want to take it there for confirmation, though the staff looks okay if I trust their bios
  • Many of these quotes can be paraphrased, especially for want of space in this section
  • "Los Santos, a city featured in Grand Theft Auto V.": were there other cities?
  • This section's major structural problem is that a few sentences are constructed in a "X was acclaimed, Y person said Z" format that ends sentences only citing the "Y said Z" and not the "X was acclaimed". That portion of the sentence needs the refs necessary to defend that claim. This is a flow issue.

czar  03:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I disagree, but I've added a "review round-up" from CVG to back the claim.
  • That's a good idea that I followed through on.
  • I'll take it there just in case.
  • Reception's sitting at just over 1,000 words (including the caption). Dishonored, for example, passed happily with over 1,200. I'd say that, while it's long, it's essential to the reader's understanding because GTA is historically most widely known for its very positive reviews. There's a good mix of quotes and paraphrasing, and I noticed in your recent copy-editing you paraphrased a few more. I'd contend the balance is good now.
  • I refined the image caption just slightly.
  • I disagree completely. I've reviewed your work before and I know you like to cite everything, but if I went through on your point here the section would be muddled with redundant citations. Here's why. Take the paragraph "The story and characters—particularly Trevor—polarised reviewers". Now there's no footnote at the end of that sentence, because it's a point that is expanded upon further in the prose. There are 13 citations throughout the paragraph each used to refer back to the opening sentence. There's no reason to over-cite. CR4ZE (tc) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I consider Dishonored's Reception excessive, but I didn't get around to reviewing it (as you know, I put a lot of time into my reviews—jeez, the copyedit alone—and the longer the article, the greater the time commitment). My expectation for such sections would be to stick to high-level critiques and to collect "redundant citations" from meta-reviews as much as possible for the boldest claims. The thing is that GTA and Dishonored are totally capable of that quality due to their broad coverage. There is room for each Reception ¶ to sparkle by making sure its contents actually pertain to the idea of the ¶, but I'll leave it as a friendly suggestion. I think you misinterpret what I meant with the last bullet. The way it is now, I had broken sentences with two clauses into separate sentences, such that the ¶s have topic sentences now. Before ("X was acclaimed, Y person said Z"), the citation would appear to cite both the X and YZ clauses. Citing that separated topic sentence (for the sake of WP:V) is up to you. czar  03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with the way Reception is now, and you've made some good copy-editing here and there so it should meet the "brilliant" criteria. Re the topic sentences, this was an approach I took on in my big cull (this section used to be about 1,500 words I think) to get things as short as I could. There used to be topic sentences like we have now. The ones now are best left uncited. Rhain1999 is working on your last batch of points about the Awards section. CR4ZE (tc) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
1,508, to be exact. CR4ZE (tc) 03:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Escapist generally isn't reliable (WP:VG/RS)—consider killing it
  • " for broadening the scope of the game": I don't know what this would mean, so I removed it
  • Remember that when you use a one-off's surname and don't mention their parent outlet, we have no idea who they are (e.g., "McDonald felt that the licensed music": who the hell is McDonald?, "Gerstmann agreed that the score")
  • "felt that the game's mission design": did this jump from heist missions to regular missions? cl
  • GTAO GameSpot review by "Petit, Petit" fixed
  • "felt that in spite of the improvements, 'the auto-targeting system is twitchy": did this just switch from driving mechanics to shooting mechanics? Needs better signposting
  • "a single lead protagonist whose moral complex was muddled": not sure what this meant, cl
  • The prose in the Reception sentence drags and isn't quite brilliant... more variance from "X of Y (website) said Z"
  • "and the Social Club service": needs explanation
  • "during load screens for early missions": "load screen" is jargon
  • Online section's history can be summarized more since many of the details are not necessary for this article (other than the major events of the botched launch), but it isn't imperative
  • "This broke the previous record set by Call of Duty: Black Ops II ...": make this a {{refn}}, asides not immediately relevant to the text
  • "the largest digital release": in downloads? revenue? specify
  • "beat the lifetime sales of Grand Theft Auto IV": overall? worldwide? it jumps back and forth

czar  06:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not removing The Escapist. It's considered situational because of Yahtzee's popularity, but Greg Tito is a senior staffer who's been there nine years. He makes some perfectly valid commentary about the game. CR4ZE (tc) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It was just for consideration, and I'm not sure the reliability concerns are localized to Yahtzee
  • Everything else has been fixed. Load screen has been wikilinked the first time and reworded the second time. As for the multiplayer launch, I'll leave that to you at a point one day where you get the sub-article you created to a more suitable length. Almost all of it is just recycled from this section, which doesn't merit summarising here just yet. CR4ZE (tc) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone copied the Reception section, but the rest was newly written.
  • Awards: consider killing rowspan
  • "Xbox 360, and won the latter": cl
  • Would help to know why it matters to be nominated for these awards—it just reads as a laundry list of accolades right now, which isn't helpful
  • In most cases of this list, the number of nominations doesn't matter. I'd group the mentions where the game won the Game of the Year and then group all like comparisons (awards for best audio, etc.) I started to trim along these lines in the last ¶ of Awards but it can go further
  • There is undue weight on controversies. Look how long they are compared to the other sections. It can still use trimming, especially in the By the Book mission description. Might want to break out the section into its own article so it can be kept brief in this one
  • (Now that it's been trimmed a bit, I think the weight is okay—it just looks bad by length)
  • "had an underlying commentary that made the violent content necessary": which was?

Okay, that's it for now. I think the issues are surmountable. For anyone reading this far, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar  13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've recently re-written the Awards section to reflect your notes on it, so be sure to take a look. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I also made a couple of fixes to the plot, and refined that sentence in the Controversies section. Looks like all of your points have been covered. CR4ZE (tc) 12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
There are two abandoned ref errors at the bottom of the page—likely inadvertent, but wanted to check czar  13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Couple of very small typos from Rhain, that's all. CR4ZE (tc) 13:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry about that! I should have taken a better look at the article after my edits. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • They kill only Haines at the end? Not Norton too? czar  13:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Nope, Norton lives. He's loosely considered a "good guy", because he brokers the Ludendorff deal and gives Michael his new life. And they all live happily ever after. CR4ZE (tc) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: So... CR4ZE (tc) 04:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I take longer to respond during the week—I typically only review over the weekends because that's when I can steal the time. Here are a few more
  • Isn't the Awards section missing more pre-release awards? There's nothing about E3 awards, for example
  • I'm not sure how the mentioned nominations were chosen, e.g., the "nomination at the Game Developers Choice Awards" does not seem consequential compared to winning awards from so many other sources. I'd recommend removing the nominations unless they are utterly vital (perhaps such as Biggest Disappointment noms, but even there I'd contend it likely isn't worth mentioning)
  • Did y'all see my suggestion about rowspan and readability?
  • The -ing gerund thing (mentioned above) is happening again in the Awards section rewrite (fixed, but I'm only halfway through the section for now)
  • GOTY mentions were missing. I added them, but they need refs (not sure how you want to mention Slant, if necessary)

czar  14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It's been well-documented that Rockstar have historically been absent from media conferences to promote their games. I'm quite certain, for example, that they haven't been to E3 in a decade. (Some background). It's a deliberate marketing approach, and it's clearly worked in the past. As such, nope, there's almost nothing when it comes to pre-release awards. The nominations may not be necessary in prose, but I'd say they should be left in the table. (We could, in future, split the table off into something like "List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V"). Now I'm personally terrible when working with tables (I scarcely have to use them), so I'll have to leave it to someone else (pinging Rhain) to deal with rowspan. CR4ZE (tc) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I would definitely keep the nominations in the table—I only meant the prose. In absence of preview awards, it may be worth including at least something somewhere on the great level of anticipation for the game.[77][78] And if there is only one pre-release award in the whole section, might be worth just putting that first instead of using the topic sentence that makes it seem that there will be plenty of pre-release awards. czar  19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have commented out the GOTY awards you added. Rhain and I were only able to find this source for GamesTM, which is completely unreliable (amplified by the fact that it actually cites Wikipedia as a source... citogenesis clusterfuck). In the meantime I'm pinging Hahnchen who may have GamesTM, but I can't find GamePro. And I'd rather not keep having to buy archives online. The pre-release anticipation was mentioned in the article, but this is (again) fact that got split off into the Development sub-article. I've added the statement back into the Development section. Now, as for the table, again, I have no idea how to work with them, but I have experimented with killing the "rowspan" parameter and all I seem to do is mess it up. Not sure how to handle this one. Can we just bring another editor in to have a look and make a decision? CR4ZE (tc) 12:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I do have the relevant GamesTM issue, but it's not something I'll have access to until late May as it's in storage. Their website suggests it's issue 142. I'm not sure how notable magazine year end awards are, GTA V will have had too many to list. - hahnchen 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
GOTY awards from major publishers would be quite vital information for the Reception section's completeness, no? Checking the 2013 versions of the Dishonored list of GOTY/#1 awards won, I don't think GTA V's list would be much longer. Here's an unreliable source that purports a whole bunch more wins, if you'd like to try the more notable ones. czar  17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nicereddy[edit]

  • In "Gameplay", the multiplayer character/avatar is mentioned in second paragraph, where its mentioned that the southern point on the HUD compass represents the multiplayer character. While the three single-player characters are mentioned a few sentences prior, the multiplayer character isn't mentioned at all before this sentence, which is fairly confusing. If you could add a quick sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph, before the mention of the compass, I think that'd help clarify.
  • In the "Development" section: "The game required five years' work by a team of over 1,000 people...". I was wondering if this was grammatically correct, specifically the "five years'", as it looks off to me, but I could be wrong.
  • In "Plot", the FIB links to the actual Federal Bureau of Investigation page, which may be a bit confusing for readers.
  • In "Multiplayer launch", I think the following is a bit awkward: "Upon launch, users reported difficulties connecting to the game's servers and the Social Club service, or freezes during load screens for early missions." Specifically, the "or freezes during load screens for early missions." I'd also note that "the Social Club service" is fairly vague, and I don't believe it was mentioned previously in the article.
  • Also in the first paragraph of "Multiplayer launch", the phrase "A technical patch was released on *date*" is repeated twice only two sentences apart. You may want to reword one of these.

Other than that, the prose is fantastic, the article covers everything I'd expect, non-free imagery is used reasonably, and the sources seem reliable. I would consider archiving the references you're using (as I've done with Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike: Source's references, for example), since I've seen a pretty huge number of featured articles erode over time thanks to link rot. I think the longevity of Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability is reliant heavily on archiving references, and this would save you a lot of annoyance in the future. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, a lack of archives would be a silly reason not to support the article's promotion. If you can fix the issues I've listed above, I'll gladly add my support. Fantastic job to everyone involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Nicereddy. I have attempted to clarify the compass system in "Gameplay". That sentence in "Development" wasn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, although it wasn't the best wording, so I have reworked it. I removed the wikilinks from the "Plot" and instead added a note explaining that the FIB and IAA were parodies, and sourced the claim. I have attempted to clean up those couple of awkward sentences in "Multiplayer launch". Please review my changes, and if you're happy, I'd love for you to throw down a Support vote. CR4ZE (tc) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - Apologies, as I had nearly forgotten! All of my issues seem to have been fixed, and as I said in my previous comment, the prose is fantastic, the references all cite legitimate sources, non-free image use is minimal, and the article covers all material I'd expect. Really great job! --Nicereddy (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

Several things to address:

Lead
  • Make note that it is the first game in the series with multiple playable characters
Reception
  • "According to review aggregating website Metacritic, the game received an average review score of 97/100 for both consoles, and according to GameRankings, the game received an average review score of 97.01% and 96.20% for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, respectively." is lengthy. Try splitting it into something like "MetaCrtic calculated an average rating of 97/100 for both consoles. GameRankings calculated an average rating of 97.01% for the PlayStation 3 and 96.20% for the Xbox 360."
  • ref#77 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than simply The Telegraph
Multiplayer launch
  • GTA$500,000 → GTA $500,000
Awards
  • ref#142 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just Telegraph
Controversies
Depiction of torture
  • Remove ref#26 (Daily Mirror)- it's a tabloid
Accusations of sexism
  • like ref#77, ref#154 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just The Telegraph or Telegraph
Legal actions
  • Find a better source than ref#161 (New York Daily News) or remove altogether. If the detail is to be included, "US$20 million" should read "US $20 million"

After these are addressed, you have my support for this becoming FA. Good luck! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Everything has been taken care of. CR4ZE (tc) 07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Good work. That should do it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Delegate comment[edit]

  • Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Nicereddy approved the images in his comments. Would you like to see a full review? I can page some editors for an additional review of images if needed. CR4ZE (tc) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing for images (note that I'm coming from WT:VG where Cr4ze asked for help):
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V.png is cover art with proper rationale.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V combat.jpg is a game screenshot to demonstration sourced commentary on the gameplay, that's fine.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg is a game screenshot to showcase the game's engine and the similarities to the real city of LA, both backed by sourced discussion, so okay.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V torture sequence.jpg is a game screenshot from one of the game's controversial missions (a scene involving torture, but here showing a scene where the player-character is selecting which torture weapon to use). This is a bit of a tricky case. No question the scene is of critical discussion, but the screenshot itself is not indicative of why (not played, but as I've read, you actually see the torture happening). I would consider it might be better to use a shot here that shows the torture about to be enacted - eg we see the victim about to be struck or the like - as to make a screenshot use here more appropriate along NFC lines. Using this specific shot begs the question if it is really needed. But that's a point of debate to build on. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Masem: I'll happily replace the image, but what I liked about the one we had now was the fact that there was an on-screen prompt for the player to pick a weapon, which reinforces that it's imperative to mission progress to torture the victim. There are, however, replacements available. Take your pick. CR4ZE (tc) 14:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Instead of those, I'd recommend a shot of the actual waterboarding. The IGN shots are relatively dark. I'd pick the one with the water canister, but I'd recommend using an image that actually illustrated the action that needs illustration. czar  15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree this might be a better shot. While a facet was that there were a number of ways to torture that the user could chose from, that really doesn't need a visual guide to show. But to show that the game actually showed the player doing this is what struck a nerve and the commentary on this scene and thus would be a clearly allowed screenshot moreso than the choie of tool. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Masem: @Czar: Here's four images that I have made as replacements. My inclination is to go with Trevor pulling Mr. K's tooth out (#2) because it's the most up-close and graphic. Although, they all would serve a similar purpose. What are your suggestions? CR4ZE (tc) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

They're still quite dark. Have you tried lightening them? Also I thought the waterboarding scenes were more effective than the tooth extractions, no? Did they not show well? (Currently working on my review above) czar  01:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I would go with the tooth-pulling image as well after some brightening. While none of the images show Mr. K's face that well, the tooth-pulling image gives the clearest view of Trevor's face. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The waterboarding segment also features a close-up camera on Mr. K's covered face with water being poured onto it. The camera switches between the view from the screenshot I snapped, immediately to the close-up just as Trevor begins pouring. Trevor is barely seen on-screen there (you see a hand and two feet) so that I feel would lose the impact of the image. My inclination is still towards the tooth-pulling, because featured on-screen are the faces of both men, a contextual prompt and a close-up view. If I do a re-up of either image, can somebody else do a lightening touch-up with Photoshop for me? I don't have the program. CR4ZE (tc) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that tooth-pull is a better choice. Also, one more thing I noticed- remove ref#97 (Metro, which is a tabloid) or replace with a better source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate, the point of using non-free images (and this is what Masem was stressing) is that it should be showing something that just isn't possible from text description alone. So a picture of Trevor standing with pliers would not be as effective as an image of an actually traumatic action, such as seeing the target in the throes of the action. Whether or not we see Trevor doing it isn't the point. I can try lightening whatever you choose to upload czar  02:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The shot that I suggested wasn't just of Trevor standing there with pliers. He's towering over Mr. K ripping his tooth out. It would have been just as powerful a shot, however I'm going with the waterboarding shot only because the camera angle in the pliers scene doesn't clearly show Mr. K's mouth enough. CR4ZE (tc) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Can anyone try lightening the colour palette of the replacement image? Masem? Czar? CR4ZE (tc) 14:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Does it need to be lightened? (Just asking here) - the core elements (the victim on their back, the character about to waterboard them) are visible. But if it is believed this can be lightened , I Can do that. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd contend it may be a little hard to make out for some readers. A little lightening would make the action on-screen a little clearer, wouldn't it? CR4ZE (tc) 15:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I brightened the shot and think it looks better. Feedback? czar  04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the extra clarity looks great. Thanks. CR4ZE (tc) 04:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Are the supports/review comments sufficient enough for closing? CR4ZE (tc) 03:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]

Nominator(s): — Status (talk · contribs) & Tomíca(T2ME) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

...And we're back! Tomica (talk · contribs) and I have worked very hard on this article and we now have more time allotted to focus our energy in finally getting the article to FA status! We believe that it's very close to getting that gold star; all we need is your help getting it there! — Status (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • No disambiguation links or external links that need correcting, good work there!
  • Instead of using the term "US", I would recommend writing out "United States" when using referring to the country, and leaving it as "US" when using it as an adjective for something like "the US Billboard 200".
    I believe I've corrected all the instances. Let me know if there's any left that need changing. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, I suggest using the {{ubl}} template for the album chronology instead of the <br /> as it currently is.
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In the introduction, can it be specified that Good Girl Gone Bad was released on May 31, specifically?
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also in the introduction, when you talk about Brandy's album, maybe you can mention that it was her fourth studio album and put its year of release in parentheses.
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Release history" section, you may be interested in placing the references in their own separate column instead of next to the countries as they currently are. This is just my personal preference, though, and certainly isn't a make-or-break deal; just something you might end up liking.
  • In the "References" section, most citations that use Amazon.com list the particular country abbreviation as well, like "Amazon.com (CA)". There are some that are plainly listed as "Amazon.com", and while it appears that these links go to the United States version, can you add in the "(US)" in the publisher field?
    Adjusted. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also in the "References" section, I believe that the Australian iTunes citation should be listed as the "iTunes Store'".
    Done. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I am happy with all of the revisions made, and am giving my support to the nomination. Nice job! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks so much! — Status (talk · contribs) 02:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prism[edit]

Superficial comment from Prism

Hello Status! I see you have fought for this article to become an FA, and it is quite close to reaching such status. However, I have to be fair here, and compare Good Girl Gone Bad to other album FAs. It hardly references any of the lyrical content, and regardless of it clearly emphasizing the music and not the lyricism, it should talk about what the songs, in general, address. I'm not going to force you to write down every meaning of every song in the tracklisting, but just a general view would be welcome. Thank you! Prism 19:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Prism: We will have a look for sure to see if we find such information to add to the article, but we can't promise that such sources exist. I understand your concern and thank you for raising it! — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Petergriffin9901[edit]

  • Quick comments - You guys need to sift through the references. I'm finding many inconsistencies. A few examples: I see MTV is sometimes in italics, Radio & Records is linked in awkward places, a few news articles are not properly formatted. These issues persist throughout. Also, regarding the prose. As a past music article editor, I know the difficulty in avoiding choppy, repetitive and possible listing-type prose when dealing in this field. However, in terms of comma usage and sentence structure, the article often reads a bit awkwardly.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 02:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    @Petergriffin9901: Thank you for your comments Nathan! Would you mind pasting a few sentences that you find read a bit awkwardly, so I have something to go on? As for the references, those will be a no-biggie to fix! — Status (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Вик Ретлхед[edit]

  • Good Girl Gone Bad produced five singles, including the international hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Umbrella", which Rolling Stone placed at number 412 on the magazine's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time list.—Is it "Don't Stop the Music" or "Umbrella" that was placed on Rolling Stone's list? You'll need to clarify this.
    • Just "Umbrella" was. Corrected. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS-ALBUM#Personnel ("If citing from Allmusic, do not include composer credits"), the composers in "Personnel" are redundant.
  • Good Girl Gone Bad is a dance-pop[19] and R&B album[20] influenced by 1980s music.[8]—This is a primary example of violating WP:SYNTH. It doesn't mean that if one critic says "it's a pop album" and another one calls it an R&B album, you can write "it's pop and R&B". Furthermore, the same can be said about the rest of the "Composition" section. Basically every song is tagged with genres by multiple sources.
  • West Indian shouldn't be linked. The article discusses some old civilization, which is not connected with the sound of Rihanna's previous albums.
    • Changed to Caribbean, as that's what the source states. I don't know where West Indian came from. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another issue is the prose in this section, which is not "brilliant". The section goes "song—genre—comparison with other artist" and the same on and on, while the text from "Critical response" is not cohesive. It lacks linking words and is filled with too many quotations.
  • "Accolades and legacy"—It would be better if the section was entitled just as "Accolades". I haven't noticed that the record influenced some other artist or had significant impact on its genre. Being nominated for Grammy and being certified platinum doesn't make it a "legacy" album.
  • Sorry, but I have to oppose the promotion of this article to FA. You've definitely put hard work on this one, but it needs additional fixes to match the criteria. The biggest strength of the page is the formatting style and tables, but the issues listed above can't be ignored.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

Here's some things I would do before this becomes FA:

Development and title
  • The info on A Girl Like Me belongs on its own page, not here
  • The quote from what she told StarPheonix should just go in the first paragraph, and so should the first sentence of the second paragraph
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, don't use ref#7 multiple times in a row. Just include it at the end of the "Rihanna explained that she wanted to keep the audience dancing and be soulful at the same time" sentence.
Recording and production
  • Three photos in one corner is excessive. If including any, just use Ne-Yo and Tricky Stewart.
  • More WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#14 after the "Rapper Jay-Z added rap vocals" sentence in second paragraph, and ref#15 after the "over which Timberlake improvised his lyrics" bit.
Composition
  • More WP:OVERCITE, don't have ref#24 right after the "contains rhythmic devices used mainly in hip hop music" bit in second paragraph, ref#21 should just be used in the "It samples New Order's 1983 single 'Blue Monday'" sentence in second paragraph, and ref#23 should just be used after the "produced by Timbaland" bit in the third paragraph
Singles
  • If including a photo of Jay-Z, just use one of simply him and mention his collaboration with Rihanna on "Umbrella" and what critics said about it
Marketing and release
Live performances
  • More WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#80 at the end of the "'Don't Stop the Music' and 'Umbrella'" bit.
Re-issue and remix album
  • More WP:OVERCITE, ref#124 should just be used at the end of the second paragraph
  • Beyoncé Knowles → Beyoncé

Best of luck getting this to FA! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In case they haven't noticed the input, pinging @Status: and @Tomica:. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A metalloid is kind of a cross between a metal and a nonmetal. They have a mix of metallic, nonmetallic and in between properties.

One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, suggested I ask User:John if he could copyedit this article. I did, he did, and it looks very sharp now. User:Dirac66 then checked the article, was happy with the standard of copy-editing, and made a few technical observations that I've addressed. More details are at the metalloid talk page here and here. Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Support from John[edit]

Support. As Sandh has generously pointed out I did a lot of work on this article. I know it intimately and have no reservations about supporting its promotion. --John (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I took out "In contrast, Jones (writing on the role of classification in science) observed that, 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.'<ref>[[#Jones2010|Jones 2010, p. 169]]</ref>" because I do not think it is essential to the article. Is Jones writing specifically about metalloids or is it just a general comment on classification? We already have enough about the difficulty of classifying elements as metalloids in any case. We used to have more. "In contrast" is one of the markers I look for in copyediting. So are "additionally", "actually" and "however". Unless the author has explicitly contrasted two things, we shouldn't use this term. --John (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is very good. If I may, I'd like to keep Jones as a plain note (without the 'In contrast'). He isn't writing about metalloids. He's writing about whether or not Pluto is a planet and, in that context, the role of classification in science. His writing is particularly cogent, and the parallel of what used to be the lack of a definition of a planet, to the lack of an agreed definition of a metalloid, is striking and interesting. Of course, I won't say that in the note but I can hope that someone else may read Jones and enjoy the analogies. Just replace wherever he says "Pluto" and "planet" with "selenium" (e.g.) and "metalloid" :) Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Designate[edit]

Comment: I notice polonium and astatine are both marked as "Inconsistent" in the top infobox graphic, but only astatine is outlined in black in the bottom graphic. Shouldn't they both be outlined or non-outlined? —Designate (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the "inconsistency" at work ;-). The blue colors show the statistic outcome, the periodic table shows reasonings for the individual elements. Both statements are valid and sourced, but their contradiction requires explanation. As there is no space for that in the infobox (for a reason), the micro periodic table should go.
Note: I added the micro periodic table for overview, without giving it much thought back then [79]. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The bottom graphic could stay as the caption says it's 'a' periodic table, rather than 'the' periodic table. it's also linked to the periodic table article. I'm not fussed either way. Designate: if this would still seem to be too confusing I'll ask for the bottom graphic to be deleted. Thank you for your thought provoking comment. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sandbh, as Designate simply pointed out: it may be right & sourceable, but it is unexplained there. That is a sin. And I think that that table box is not the place to explain it, so removal is my choice. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, in the top graphic you have four categories: Commonly, Inconsistently, Less commonly, and Rarely. Seems the bottom graphic could include the top two designations, or the top three, or all four, but right now it's jarring because it doesn't seem to have been made with the same reasoning as the top graphic. —Designate (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
DePiep, could you please remove the bottom graphic? Sandbh (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the one at the bottom of the infobox. —Designate (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see what you meant now. It is annoying that the code is so complex that it will require an expert to make this adjustment. --John (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the small periodic table is colored based on this code. All the elements have a |category listed—maybe astatine and polonium can both be changed to category=unknown instead of metalloid/metal. The individual page for astatine calls it "Metalloid (disputed)" while the page for polonium calls it "Other metal (disputed)". It doesn't seem to me that they should be given the same color on the top chart at Metalloid if At is more commonly recognized as a metalloid than Po. —Designate (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the small PT at the base of the infobox. Deleted two lines I think) of code. I must've been tired when I asked DePiep to do it, as I could've done it myself if I'd looked harder. I'll restore the PT at the very end of the article on the presumption that this'll be OK to restore. Sandbh (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. --John (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from R8R Gtrs[edit]

Support. During the first FAC, I wasn't confident the article deserved the FA status, but Sandbh refused to give up, and the article was getting better and better over time. I've given a lengthy comment during the second FAC. The issues I raised were resolved, and I didn't support only because I suddenly lost the opportunity to get online, check, and support. The article has remained FA-worthy ever since.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Harry Mitchell[edit]

This is not at all my are of expertise; I'm use to writing history articles, not science articles, but this is a really interesting subject so I thought I'd take a look.

  • Thank you very much Harry. I'm working my way through these, other than those John has astutely edited, and will respond further shortly. Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The feasibility of establishing a specific definition has been questioned by whom?
  • That would be Hawkes. I've hopefully made this clearer by using a semicolon to join this sentence to the one that follows it, since the latter sentence ends with the applicable citation. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this needs to attributed in the prose; we shouldn't expect the reader to read the citation to work out that the phrase is not in Wikipedia's 'voice'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • So done -- Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Classifying an element as a metalloid has been described... ditto?
  • No, that is Sharp, as per citation at the end of the sentence. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed -- Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.' You need a citation after a direct quote (I see you have one just before the quote; perhaps that could be moved to the end of the sentence?)
  • So done. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You need at least one citation in the 'physical and chemical' section
  • This section is the lede/high level summary for the following two sections, which include sourced text, and a main article link. As such, I didn't think it necessitated citation. I'm happy to revisit this however, if you feel that this will not do. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This could be done based on the extent to which an element exhibits properties relevant to such status. Is that from Hawkes? If it is, perhaps the citation could moved to the end of that sentence for clarity?
  • Yes; so done. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • selenium […] is used to improve the workability of stainless steels what does 'workability' mean in this context?
    • Changed to machinability and wikilinked. Good catch. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You could do with a citation at the end of paragraphs two and six of the 'biological agents' section
  • Will do Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Now done Sandbh (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Compounds of antimony are used as antiprotozoan drugs, and in some veterinary preparations. 'antiprotozoan' isn't a term I'm familiar with, and I'd be surprised if most lay people were familiar with it; an example of veterinary uses might be nice.
  • I've reworded and simplified this sentence, and added a citation. Sandbh (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Tellurium is not considered particularly toxic. As little as two grams of sodium tellurate, if administered, can be lethal. Those seem to be two contradictory statements.
    • I think it emphasises the difference between the element and its compound. Edited to reflect this. Please fix it if I have misunderstood. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Watch 'with's, eg beryllium and lead are noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used...; this kind of use of 'with' is generally discouraged
    • I've taken quite a stern hack at the 'with's. Better? --John (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • compounds such as sodium arsenite or sodium arsenate are effective flame retardants for wood but were less frequently used... Were or are? 'Were' suggests they're now being used more frequently; is that the case?
    • Fixed tense. This is an error I introduced, so good catch again. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • requires a 'heroic quench rate' Who is this quoting? Why use a quote instead of a plain English phrase?
  • Kaminow & Li, as per end of sentence. I quite liked the concise way they expressed this hence kept it as a quote rather than recasting. I've now cited them after the quote, too. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The terms amphoteric element and semiconductor are problematic as some elements referred to as metalloids do not show marked amphoteric behaviour or semiconductivity in their most stable forms. There's much less detail there than on the other problematic terms; is that deliberate? You need a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • I've added examples of such elements, plus citations. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Use of this latter term has more recently been discouraged Try to use active voice where practical; who discouraged the use of the term? IUPAC or somebody else?
  • That was Atkins, as per the citation. (He also happens to be a past chair of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Education). Sandbh (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reworded to make this clear -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • 'remarkably inert to all acids, including hydrofluoric' according to whom? Perhaps spell out the what's remarkable about its non-reactivity with hydrofluoric acid (I can guess that it's remarkable because you mention boron does react with fluorine, but it would be nice not to make the reader guess)
  • That is according to Rochow, as per the citation after the quote. I'll see if I can add something about the highly corrosive nature of hydrofluoric acid. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Reworded to show that it's Rochow speaking; note added to elaborate what's remarkable about non-reactivity to HF -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It can form alloys with many metals; most of these are brittle. Most of the alloys or most of the metals? I'm guessing the former, but it's ambiguous as it is.
    • Reworded for less ambiguity. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What's with the external link on electrode potential? External links shouldn't be linked inline per the MoS.
    • Fixed. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Classifying aluminium as a metalloid is disputed by whom? You cite some examples in the footnote, but it would be nice for the prose to elaborate. What's the scientific consensus? From the context, I'm guessing that it's to treat aluminium as a metal, but again, it would be nice to spell it out.
  • I've edited and restructured this section. It still starts with the same opening sentence but I've included a citation to a reference guide book on metallic materials. That's the closest I could get to scientific consensus that aluminium is a metal. The next paragraph is the one that says aluminium is sometimes classified as a metalloid. That's immediately followed by the disputing paragraph, with the authors doing the disputing given in the citation. Then there is the concluding paragraph with more moderate or nuanced views. I tend to minimize the use of active voice in an encyclopedia article such as this. Sandbh (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • and may be more appropriately classified as either Do you mean it is sometimes or by some people or that it could be?
  • Reworded -- Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

More generally:

  • I think the article uses a lot of technical terms, which makes it less accessible than it could be; I'd really love some brief parenthetical explanations of terms (I'll provide examples when I get chance)
  • OK, that's good to hear. Happy to oblige. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • watch uses of 'with'; use as a connective is discouraged (eg "p-block, with its main axis anchored by boron"; "noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used")
  • Done, as per John's edits. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • How I approached this is set out in Talk:Metalloid. I'm happy to revisit if needs be. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I love the comparisons with chemicals people know about (eg steel, tap water); how would you feel about adding some more? Not overdoing it, but enough that the reader has something to which they can compare the chemicals covered in the article.
  • Very happy to try for more as I like the value of comparisons with ordinary things. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • When I write history articles, I like to see the author introduced by their full name with an explanation of their credentials (eg "the British metallurgist Cecil Desch") rather than just by surname (eg "Phillips and Williams suggested that"...); I think it would be nice to see this here.
  • Not sure if that might be more particular to history writing? I don't often encounter it in scientific writing unless it is for the giants. I'm not sure I see it that much in arts writing either. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is obviously a labour of love and you've clearly put a lot of time into it. I don't see anything that would preclude it becoming an FA, but there's a little bit of work still to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Much appreciated. Always good to hear from non-experts. You see things and ask questions that aficionados would overlook or rarely think to ask. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we may be done here for now Harry, thank you. (I'll keep an eye out for any ripe technical terms, and possibilities for new comparisons with ordinary things). Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've replied above on a couple of issues, and there are a couple of others I'll get to when I can (nothing too serious), but I'm happy with the changes so far. Great work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks again; all looking good so far (a few small things for me to do still). Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

I'm no chemist so I'm concentrating on accessibility. Generally I agree with Harry's comments above, though not about "introducing" noted chemists in the literature. It's obvious they are chemists, so only anyone who isn't a chemist needs to be introduced, imo.

  • Thank you Johnbod. I appreciate your interest and observations. I'm working through these. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "packing efficiencies" has a whole para, but is linked but not explained, which it should be, very briefly.
  • Done -- Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion" is only explained in the notes, which is not ideal. Failing a short article, perhaps the explanation should go in the text.
  • Done, but this one was a bit trickier to explain concisely. There is still a somewhat technical term ('molar volume') although it has a link. Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The first para of "Number, composition and alternative treatments" pretty much entirely repeats, with added names of researchers, what has been said already. Better to merge it into the first time round? The first para of "Distinctive" is rather the same.
    • I've actioned the first suggestion and I tentatively agree it looks better. Sandbh, what do you think? --John (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Am in a rush; will respond as soon as Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The first one seems at least OK and a clever relocation. I'll have a closer look and post here if needs be. (Puffing to keep up!). Sandbh (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Have trimmed and restructured to remove duplication. Sandbh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the section on medical etc uses, but selenium is missing in the final bit. As I'm sure you know, it's inclusion in dietry supplement pills etc has been criticised recently.
  • I've added some content about selenium as an essential nutrient and its medicinal applications. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small atomic size, relatively high ionization energy, and its having fewer valence electrons (three) than atomic orbitals (four) available for bonding. With only three valence electrons, simple covalent bonding is electron deficient with respect to the octet rule." Eek, help! More links please!
  • "Monographs" - Checking a couple, these don't seems to be used in the refs, so are what is normally called "further reading" on WP. This one "Vernon RE 2013, 'Which Elements are Metalloids?', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 1703–7, doi:10.1021/ed3008457", at 3-4 pages long, can't really be called a monograph, nor can Goldsmith and Hawkes, where only 2 page ranges are given. Others are sections or chapters in larger, more general, works. I'd just go with "further reading", maybe splitting the true monographs into a sub-section there.
  • Johnbod, my intent here was only to list the known single topic writings on metalloids, of which there are relatively few. I've changed the title of this section to 'Known monongraphs'. Here I'm using the broad meaning of 'monograph', as a written account of a single thing. I've added an explanatory note to that effect. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have split some too long paras and added links. More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks again. I believe I may be done here for now, unless I happen to see any gremlins. Sandbh (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently unlinked: oxygen, crystal, semiconductor is apparently only linked in a table - not sure about the rules here, Valence electron, Covalent bond, allotropic, halide. Several if not all of these come from the single para about boron where I asked for more links above. A lot more work is obviously needed here. Some of these may seem very basic terms (but you link "diamond") but they aren't. I still haven't read beyond the boron section, but will do so when assured the linking has been checked throughout the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I missed this one. Have rechecked the article and added more wikilinks. Guidance is that generally, a link should appear only once in an article (upon the term's first occurrence in the text of the article) but if helpful for readers, links can be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. And articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles. Have used some judgement in deciding what to link; hopefully no oversights. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Update I have read through the rest of the article, and would have some small points, but I don't know when I'll have time to write them up. The nom seems to have attracted enough support - if the delegates feel it is otherwise ready for promotion, please don't hold that up on my account. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph length (PL)[edit]

Could I please have some opinions about this?

PL has been area of interest to editors and reviewers of this article. Short paragraphs have sometimes been merged; long paragraphs have sometimes been split. All of these changes and associated comments have been well-intentioned. When I look back on them it seems to me they sometimes inadvertently result in paragraphs that cover more than one idea; and at other times they inadvertently split the idea being developed with the result that it becomes harder to comprehend. As well, the end result of some of these edits is that it's no longer possible to follow the bones of the article by reading just the topic/first sentence of each paragraph, which is the way I was taught how to use paragraphs.

Wikipedia guidance about PL is that they should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs. All quite reasonable.

The upshot is that I've shortened or merged some of the paragraphs in the article so that (a) each paragraph develops the single idea unit that is flagged in its topic sentence: and (b) there is a logical flow from topic sentence to topic sentence, throughout the article.

I'm hoping that these latest edits will still be FAC-acceptable. Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There is also an issue of sheer length, especially when the material is dense (for many readers anyway). I split some paras when not editing on my usual machine but one with a smaller (laptop) screen, where with a table or picture at the side some paras lasted a whole screen. Heaven knows what they'd look like on a mobile. Allowing for screen-reading on a vast range of sceen sizes, I would err on the side of short paras, not worrying so much about developments of ideas. The "bones" are supposed to be in the lead anyway, though not all of them. Very long-looking paras just put readers off. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I've split or re-split some of the longer paragraphs. I checked the article on a 13.3 notebook; no paras take up a whole screen. Checked on older iphone; most paras (>85%) fit on no more than one screen. Found some interesting external reading about paragraph length here and here. The recommendation you make about erring on the side of short paras, given the rise of small screens, is a good one. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Job done on this, as far as I'm concerned. As with images the multiplicity of screen sizes now has rather over-taken our guidance I think. Useful links. My own style seems to favour short paras, at least online; I was struck after the event by the contrast between my online comment here, #8 in a very narrow space and the preceding 7 in terms of para length. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility[edit]

The colour-keys in the periodic table extracts fail MOS:COLOUR. Non-colour indicators, like asterisks or superscript numbers, should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, this was raised early on in the development of the article. I believe it is addressed in the text boxes accompanying the images in question. This text explains in words which elements are covered by which legend/colour key. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume Sandbh's explanation answers (there is full textual descrtiption below). So it is not "colors only". Can Pigsonthewing agree? -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note -- I gave myself a reminder when this was nominated previously that I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be, if promoted, the nominator's first FA. I'll wait a bit to see if any reviewer above wants to undertake that, otherwise I'll make a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever[edit]

This is one of the best featured article candidates (FACs) I've ever read! It's properly neutral, has good prose, and is filled with amazing grammar. All the pictures in the article look fascinating, and its worth tons of references everywhere. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind feedback! Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Finishing content[edit]

@John:@Designate:@R8R Gtrs:@Harry Mitchell:@Johnbod:@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever:
I added content re "Pyrotechnics" as a common application (an oversight), and "Abundance, extraction and cost" (polished from an earlier draft). Both copyedited by John. Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I copy-edited it again. It is a good addition. --John (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 402[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article as it has been recently promoted to A-class and meets all the standards expected of a Featured Article. The successful promotion of this article would be my and WP:ONRD's fifth FA, the third 400-series FA, and would interconnect Michigan's and Ontario's highway FAs with the future nomination of I-69. Floydian τ ¢ 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per my review and spotcheck at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 402. --Rschen7754 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at the ACR and feels it meets the criteria. Dough4872 03:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments—overall the article looks good, and I'm inclined to support. I have some comments through. Starting with the references:
    • Overall, there's a tendency not to match the case of the titles in the references. This gives an unpolished look compared to APA or Chicago style which directs authors to force sources titled in one case into another. (APA prefers sentence case for journal article titles; Chicago prefers consistently using title case regardless of how the original source was formatted.)
      • As one example, you have "The Corporation Of The City of Sarnia", which in title case would have both instances of of and the second of the in lower case.
      • The press release in footnote 3 is in title case, while the news article in footnote 4 is in sentence case. Can we pick one and harmonize them all to it?
    • "Ontario Ministry of the Environmnet" in footnote 3. Also. "Dr." can be dropped as such titles are normally omitted from names in citations.
    • "pdf" should really be rendered in all caps; it's an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format". That formatting queue should also be added to any citations missing it (footnote 3 again) especially because there is discussion about removing them.
    • Footnote 18: "Press Release - Sarnia to London (Hwy. 402)" it probably would be nice to drop the "Press Release - " from the title since we have (Press release) appearing right afterwards.
    • Footnote 21: "The Observer (Sarnia: Sun Media)" Thank you for including the location, but you can probably drop the publisher.
    • Footnote 25: you should add |link=no to suppress the link on Google there since it's linked in FN 23.
    • Footnote 31: "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S". This is one of those cases where because the citation template applies the period after the quotation mark )per WP:LQ), that I would say you should drop the period and go with "US" instead. Otherwise, "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S.". is your only solution to making the abbreviation not look half punctuated.
    • Footnote 35: "Detroit Free Press (Michigan)" the location there is superfluous unless there's another newspaper called the Detroit Free Press published elsewhere.
    • Footnote 38: that's listing the wrong publication. You've cited an article from The London Free Press that was written by a reporter employed by The Observer of Sarnia. Such crossover is common with papers owned by the same publisher. The Mining Journal here in Marquette, Michigan, reprints articles written for their sister paper The Daily Mining Gazette in Houghton, but I would still cite the specific paper who published the edition of the article I consulted.
    • A request for consideration, but could you include scale information on the map citations? Several citation guides I consulted over the last year for citing maps in APA, MLA or Chicago style (since none of those three guide actually specify directly how to cite maps) recommended "Scale not given" for fixed-scale maps (not dynamic ones like Google Maps). Also, it would be nice if you could supply cartography information, even if it means repeating the name of the publishing organization. (I will list "Michigan Department of Transportation" as the publisher and "MDOT" for the cartography if the map doesn't specify a more specific item to list.)
  • Prose—not much here
    • I noticed that you abbreviated the American Interstates in the lead. It's up to you, but since you listed I-69's full name with the abbreviation, you can probably abbreviate I-94's first mention, even though it's in the same sentence. Then I'd recommend that you abbreviate all of the other mentions for consistency.
    • The sentence stating with "However, construction of a new route known as the Rt. Honourable Herb Gray Parkway ..." can probably be put into a lettered footnote and dropped from the body of the article. As it is, it feels like a tangent and a diversion from the topic, which is the western end of Highway 402. (Use {{#tag:ref| sentence with footnotes|group=lower-alpha}} to embed the cited text into another footnote.)
    • "as a result of the efforts of Lambton Wildlife Inc." can probably also be dropped as getting off topic. (the former rail line aspect of the trail does add some interest, and maybe a link to rail trail is appropriate?)
    • "Planning for the route that would become Highway 402 began following the completion of the Blue Water Bridge in 1938. A divided highway was constructed through Sarnia following World War II; it was completed and designated in 1953.[16] The intent to extend the route to Highway 401 was announced in 1957.[17]" It would read better, and give some more information to readers if you used the active voice here. "X starting planing for the route... " and "Y announced its/their intent to extend..." for example.
    • "Since completion as a four lane route, ..." that needs a hyphen since four-lane is a compound adjective.
    • "Highway 402 is one of the original 400-series highways, having been numbered a year after Highway 400 and Highway 401, in 1953." those two words are unneeded and awkward.
    • "The short 6.1 km (3.8 mi) dual highway" should really be using |adj=on instead of |abbr=on. This level of writing is really better served by spelling out the unit of measurement, something we should only do in tables and infoboxes where space is at a premium. I would change the other measurements to remove the abbreviations as well throughout the prose. [This compares to the "two metres (6 ft)" lower down, which would be "2 m (6 ft)" if you were going to consistently abbreviate.]
    • "Lambton OPP monitored ... " I know OPP = Ontario Provincial Police, but other readers won't.
  • Overall, the article looks good, reads pretty well, and I'm inclined to support promotion once my minor concerns are addressed. Imzadi 1979  05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made all the ref changes. The Google maps titles still use lowercase since they are descriptive titles of my own doing; however, the remainder should be all good now, from what I can see.
  • As for the scales, that will take me time to compile, but I should be able to add it
  • I've abbreviated all the Interstate listings, but I kept the instance in the lede as I feel it looks odd to not have both in full.
  • Regarding switching the one bit to active prose, I don't think much is to be gained since it's just the department of highways in each case. When specific ministers make big announcements, I try to include that, but in this case I've only got maps and dates to go by and no construction companies or specific PR announcements.
  • The rest of the changes have been made. I left OPP abbreviated but linked to it, as "Lambton Ontario Provincial Police" just doesn't read right. The abbreviations should be all fixed (and I agree that they should be written in full, but was encouraged to use abbreviations in my early road-article writing days.
- Floydian τ ¢ 00:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Support—Looks good, so I can't see any reason to hold back promotion now. Imzadi 1979  00:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Scales have been added. As far as I can see, the cartographic information is included, except for the cartoony Point Edward map. The official maps simply say "Cartography by Cartography Section" or "Compiled by [the same]". - Floydian τ ¢ 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas F. Bayard[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Thomas F. Bayard: 19th-century American legislator and diplomat. A Democratic senator from Delaware, he spent most of his legislative career opposing things: civil rights, Reconstruction, tariffs, silver coinage, and pretty much anything the Republicans were for. As a diplomat, he pursued closer relations with Britain, along with trade and peace with the rest of the world. He was thoroughly reactionary, even by the standards of his time. I hope he proves an interesting subject for you. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Coemgenus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Ambassador caption shouldn't end in period
  • The author of Bayard's signature is unknown? Either it's Bayard, or that isn't his signature
    • Of course you're right. Forgot to check that one. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Thomas_Francis_Bayard_Vanity_Fair_28_June_1894.jpg: source link is dead
    • I updated the link. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • File:StephenGroverCleveland.png needs US PD tag
  • File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate.svg: what is the copyright status of the seal design? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Another version of it says its {{PD-USGov}}, which seems right to me. I'll look it to it more deeply, if you'd like. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, the Senate website says it was design for the Senate in 1885. An older version of that page shows the seal, too, so it's clear they're talking about the same one. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments, leaning support. Usual batch of quibbles, of which this is the first tranche.
Lede
  • The problem with the first paragraph is there are too many numbers "three" and "four" denoting political statistics. Suggest the prose be played with a bit, perhaps it isn't necessary to say four year term re SecState, but simply give the years, 1885 to 1889. Your use of the word "term" may be slightly misleading the reader into thinking it is appointment for a set term (like, say, the Fed Chairlady these days) when it was at the pleasure of the President.
  • It should be less numerical now, and clearer about the Sec State appointment. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Early life etc.
  • There is something of a menagerie of Bayards in the first paragraph. Part of the problem is that you are insisting on calling him Bayard. It might be best to call him Thomas here, and that could make things a bit less daunting.
  • I thought there was some MoS taboo against calling the subject by his first name, but I couldn't find it. I changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "and rose quickly in the legal profession.[5] In 1853, he was appointed United States Attorney for Delaware" While I have no doubt he was a fine lawyer indeed, would it not be more plausible that he gained the position through the fact that the Democrats had just regained power in Washington and Pops Bayard was a prominent Democrat? Also you might want to make clear whether the US Attorney position was part-time or full-time, did he continue in his law firm?
  • I added the bit about his appointment being related to a Democrat winning the 1852 election, but I can't find anything about the post being full- or part-time. The sources I have are very brief when it comes to his early life. I'll look around to see if I can find more.--Coemgenus (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "a partnership that would last until Shippen's death in 1858" Given it only lasted four years, I'm not sure I like the phrasing, since usually "that would last until … " presages something a little more dramatic.
Civil War etc.
  • The fact that Pops and Tom Bayard stayed north and voted on the nomination of Douglas is significant, they could have gone south and supported Breckinridge. Perhaps a bit more text could be devoted to this. I did get a slight giggle out of the description of Douglas as "eventual nominee", given it took two conventions, but of course there were eventually two nominees!
  • I added a bit about the party split. The sources are maddeningly vague about the Bayards' role in the 1860 campaign. Tansill never mentions Breckenridge by name, and mostly cites James Bayard's letters about his despair for the Union and how much he hates abolitionists. I really wish there was a modern bio, Tansill is very frustrating to read. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you are not adequately getting across the status of Delaware as a Southern state without (or with very few) slaves and northern weather. People today think of Delaware as an ugly city, uglier interstates, speed traps and toll booths, and little different from the North.
  • I added some about Delaware's odd position as a barely enslaved slave state. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "He also condemned the impeachment proceedings against President Andrew Johnson, " In the same speech? Because impeachment hadn't gone too far by then.
  • No, it was later. I modified the text to reflect that. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain it could be said that Johnson foiled Congress's plans. The other way around to some extent.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed "foiled" to "threatened," since they did all right in spite of Johnson. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'll address these over the weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Resuming
Gold standard
  • I think you should mention the passage of the Specie Payments Resumption Act, at present, it's only piped in the image caption and should be linked in text.
  • "In short, silver miners receive a silver dollar in exchange for bullion worth somewhat less than that, selling the government metal worth fifty to seventy cents, and receiving back a silver dollar. " For all intents and purposes, this sentence describes the same transaction twice.
  • I think I fixed the duplication. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " William B. Allison, a Republican from Iowa, agreed, and led the effort in the Senate.[59] Allison offered an amendment in the Senate requiring the purchase of two to four million dollars per month of silver, but not allowing private deposit of silver at the mints." Accordingly, Allison did not agree, at least with free silver.
  • Removed "agreed" and changed the sentence to be more accurate, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
1880
  • " In fact, the Potter committee had the opposite effect, as they uncovered telegrams" The pronoun should be "it" but perhaps the sentence is better recast.
  • Yes, I reworded it a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Surplus
  • I find no discussion here of Bayard's service as president pro tempore. I see it in the infobox, and I'm guessing that the brief tenure was because of the tie between the parties in the Senate, now that there was no VP.
Yes, I missed that that was even in the info box. I added it to the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
1884
  • "Blaine's nomination turned many reform-minded Republicans away from their party, and Bayard and Cleveland were most likely to attract their votes." Why those two?
  • They were seem as less corrupt than the average politician, and corruption is what turned the Mugwumps away from Blaine. I clarified it, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Relations etc.
  • The first paragraph needs dates when this was occurring
  • Added one - 1887. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Ambassador
  • "to the British Foreign Minister (by this time Lord Salisbury) on August 7, 1895" Salisbury was also PM.
  • Right, good point. Added it.
That's all I have. Enjoyed reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thorough review, I'm glad you enjoyed it! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support well done. I've emailed you a couple of articles with glancing mentions to Bayard that you might find helpful, or perhaps not.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Got 'em, thanks. I'll take a look at them over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Can "suzerainty" be either linked or alternately phrased?
    • I linked it. I think suzerainty is the best way to describe what the Germans wanted. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The paragraph it's in is very long, anyhow. I'd recommend splitting it at "Shortly thereafter".
    • Good point. I split it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "the lame duck 49th Congress" - seems a little informal, unless "lame duck" is a well-used political term outside my knowledge. (I took AP U.S. Gov and have never heard it.)
    • It was more common before the 20th amendment, but it still happens. I linked the term. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Charles C. Tansill, a conservative historian, found much to praise in Bayard and wrote two volumes about him in the 1940s" - Can you elaborate a little?
    • I expanded this part with some more detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bayard served on the Electoral Commission that decided the disputed 1876 presidential election." - I feel like the caption could be a bit more detailed regarding, if available, Bayard's role on it and the election's importance.
    • Bayard was just one of fifteen members who heard evidence and voted on the disposition of the disputed electoral votes. He didn't have any special role beyond that. I'm not sure what else to add without the caption getting too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of Reconstruction, you can replace one or two of the "his son"s with "Thomas".
  • "The couple would go on to have twelve children." - Name Thomas Jr. here and give a brief mention of what he would become, and is there information on any of his other children?
    • I mentioned Junior and his career at the end. Do you think it's better here? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why isn't The New York Times linked?
  • Same with the other publications. I assume at least some have Wikipedia articles.
    • You mean the journals? I don't think I've seen it done that way before. Not sure of the MoS conventions, but I'll look into it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Irish-Americans should also be linked.
  • What'd Bayard do in the Senate from 1874 to 1875? The end of "Reaction to Reconstruction" leaves me wondering.
    • Congress only met for a few months in 1875 (January to March, then again in December.) Other than voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1875, I don't think he did much of note. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What evidence is there that Bayard was an Episcopalian?
    • His biographer doesn't mention religion much, but Bayard was buried in an Episcopal cemetery. I haven't seen anything to suggest he professed any other faith than that. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "As war threatened" - Seems awkward, or at least incomplete.
  • Tamasese is redlinked. Not against the rules, I think, but not pleasing to the eyes either.
    • I think redlinks encourage article creation. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tezero: thanks for your review. I'll address all of these over the next couple of days. I think that's all of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; looks good to me. Tezero (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Link to Bar, Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Otherwise looks good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, they're both linked now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

SupportComment from Hamiltonstone. Generally excellent article.

  • "Richard Bassett, who served as Senator and Governor of Delaware" should this read "Richard Bassett, who served as Senator for, and Governor of, Delaware"? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right. Fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "When Bayard refused to comply, he was briefly arrested before being released on parole." My understanding of "parole" is that it is a form of bond while awaiting trial. The article mentions neither a trial, nor the dropping of charges. What happened?
    • I understood it to be more like a military parole, since he was arrested by soldiers, not police. In the Civil War, captured soldiers were often paroled, which meant that they could go home if they promised not to bear arms against the enemy again. If you re-enlisted and were captured again, there were some sort of negative consequences, but I'm not sure what exactly. I linked the term to the section on POW parole in the parole article, to make it clearer. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "a resolution he wrote that demanded..." but then later "the President ignored the request". Not sure it is sufficiently accurate to cast a "demand" as a "request". Can an editor look more closely at the nature of this interaction and render the language more consistent?
    • The Senate saw it as a demand, Grant saw it as a request. It wasn't binding, in either case, more like evidence of the Senate's opinion. I think the language is more clear now. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "specie" is a technical term that will require linking or explanation.
    • The link goes to a disambig, so I just explained it briefly. --Coemgenus (talk)
  • "began embroiled in a feud with the Tammany Hall wing of the party" began to be? became?
    • Good catch -- should be "became". Fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "The rights of American fisherman in Canadian waters had been disputed since American independence, but the most recent dispute..." Can you try and copyedit this passage to avoid the repetition of disputed / dispute?
    • It should read better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Joseph Chamberlain, a leading statesman in Parliament, led their delegation," I think, since three countries are involved (US, Canada, UK) this should probably read "Joseph Chamberlain, a leading statesman in the British Parliament, led their delegation," otherwise, as well as not distnguishing between Britain and Canada, we also dn't know who "their" refers to. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Good point. Changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes

  • You have a Harv error under the Articles refs -- if you install Ucucha's script they'll automatically show up in bold red so you can't miss 'em...
    • Thanks, I didn't realized I never used that article. The script is helpful. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Like to see a source review for formatting/reliability -- if no-one above would like to take that, list a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If no one volunteers today, I'll list it there. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)