Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest tank battles in history, which occurred between Nazi German and Soviet forces in July 1943, during the Second World War in the Eastern Front. It was the climax of the wider Battle of Kursk, after which the Soviets permanently gained the strategic initiative, while the Germans permanently lost the capacity to launch any more major offensives of such size in the Eastern front.

This was nominated before but got bogged down on image copyright issues, and was ultimately closed due to prolonged inactivity. Image copyright issues have now been resolved with the appropriate fair use tag. EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Nil Battey Sannata[edit]

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 2016 Bollywood film, which was an independent production that incidently got the backing of a big distribution house. The article has been listed a GA, and was recently copy-edited by an independent user to ensure neutrality and the prose issues that might have been overlooked earlier. Looking forward to constructive comments to improve the article, thank you.

Note : As I said, this was a low-budget independent production, and bevause of the lack of coverage for such productions in the newspapers and media, the article might not be as detailed as the ones concerning some of the Bollywood blockbusters. Still it is thorough with the subject and covers all the important aspects of the film. NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It sounds like a wonderful film. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits Dank, and yes the film is a pure delight! I am glad you could make that out after reading this. NumerounovedantTalk 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Million Second Quiz[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I present my third attempt at bringing a game show to FA status: The Million Second Quiz. This short-lived series aired over 11 straight days in 2013. Ryan Seacrest of American Idol fame hosted the show, which only lasted for the one season. As always, all feedback is welcome; the show's criticism was largely based on the show's confusing format so please don't hesitate to ask questions. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Alloxylon pinnatum[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Smaller than some articles I've worked on, it's about as complete as it can possibly be. I will answer queries quickly. I reckon it's within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


  • Got started on this but I'm sick today so I'm going to leave it there for now.
  • Was just reading my comments in your last FAC ... when I was talking about the odds that people would assign meaning or something, I meant that that's the question I wanted you to meditate on to solve the problem, it wasn't meant judgmentally. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
ah ok, no offence was taken so don't sweat it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Demi-Virgin[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This FAC is for a stage play, but this time one with less performance history than my previous nominations. Avery Hopwood's 1921 bedroom farce is insignificant as literature and outdated as entertainment. It is remembered primarily for the censorship dispute it generated when producer A. H. Woods was charged with staging an obscene exhibition. Woods beat the charges and strolled from the courthouse to the bank, collecting big profits from the controversy and paving the way for even more provocative shows. The article has been GA for a few months and just got a fresh GOCE copy edit, so I look forward to your FA reviews. RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "most famous scene": Who says it's famous? - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well-written and focused. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your edits and support. Re-reading the sources now, I think "most controversial" would be a better description of the scene, so I've modified the wording and added citations. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. This reads smoothly from beginning to end and seems to lack nothing. My only suggestion is to reduce "actively promoted" to "promoted" in the lede. You don't need the adverb. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support and a reasonable suggestion that is now implemented. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

1966 New York City smog[edit]

Nominator(s): —BLZ · talk 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Last year, during an introductory lecture for a law school course on environmental policy, I listened as the professor called this smog event one of the defining moments that kickstarted America's awareness of environmental problems. Surprised to find that there was no Wikipedia page for it yet, I started to do some research. I drafted up this article just in time for it to be sit on the homepage for DYK on its 50th anniversary. Since then, it's passed GA and expanded to a point that I believe is FA-worthy. This is my first time working at length on an article about something other than music, so I enjoyed the challenge and change of pace tackling a subject matter other than music for once (and I hope any FA reviewers do, too.)

I believe I have given this topic the thorough treatment that it warrants, given its somewhat under-appreciated status as a major disaster that spurred effective political change at the national level. I believe this article meets all the FA criteria, particularly for research and comprehensiveness. Several sources are either behind the NY Times archive paywall or are law review articles that I accessed through the Westlaw database; please let me know if there are any subscription barriers that I can assist with if you have a question about a source. Most of the relevant passages of book sources are available through Google Books or Amazon preview. My sincere thanks in advance to any and all reviewers. —BLZ · talk 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88[edit]

This is a very good, extensively researched article which I have little doubt I will support. In the meantime, some comments:

  • "City health officials initially maintained that the smog had not caused any excess deaths." – "deaths" might be better than "excess deaths" here. We haven't yet reached the footnote that explains what excess deaths are. And a death caused by the smog is by definition an "excess death", so "excess" seems unnecessary anyway.
  • You are exactly right, "excess death" is just the method to measure causation of deaths and is redundant or even misleading in that sentence. Good catch.
  • "The smog served as a catalyst for greater national awareness of air pollution as a serious health problem and political issue." – I’m not sure you intend to say there was "greater national awareness of air pollution as a … political issue". Rather, air pollution simply became a bigger (however described) political issue.
  • Maybe an alternate wording would be clearer, but I think that the wording is accurate. The situation prior to 1966 wasn't that environmental issues were at the forefront of political discourse, but popular support of environmentalism happened to be low. Rather, problems like pollution were not widely conceived of as political issues—that is, problems with a political solution—at all, certainly not to the extent that it became a hot political topic in the late 60s and early 70s. So there was not only an increase in political support, but also an increase in general understanding of environmental problems as political.
  • "An estimated 220–240 people died during the six-day 1953 smog, and an estimated 300–405 people died during the two-week 1963 fog." – This sentence needs to make it clear that the numbers given are for excess deaths, not total deaths. Also, is "fog" correct?
  • Fog is definitely not correct! My mind must have been foggy when I typed that. I've reworded the sentence to describe the causal relationship more accurately.
  • "Other episodes of smog occurred in the city" – "had occurred"?... to make it clear that we are still talking about pre-1963 episodes?
  • Fixed.
  • "Starting in 1953, the city opened a laboratory to monitor pollution..." – not sure what "starting in..." is doing here. Did it not simply open in 1953?
  • I removed "starting," but kept "in 1953" at the beginning of the sentence. It could also be worded "opened in 1953" if you think that's better, I don't have a strong preference.
  • There is a sentence with two mentions of the word "corresponding", which isn’t ideal for readability.
  • Fixed.
  • "served as a poor gauge of the air across all of New York City." Is "all of" necessary?
  • I've reworded this sentence with a few changes. The relevant part now reads: "the index reflected conditions in that small area, but served as a poor gauge of overall air quality across the entire city." The phrasing "all of" was not ideal, but I think there should be wording that suggests the entire area of the city.
  • "Scientists, city officials, and the public knew that New York City had a serious air-pollution problem prior to the 1966 smog episode." – I'd suggest re-arranging this sentence so that it is clear that “prior to” attaches not to the problem but the scientists, etc, knowing about it.
  • I've reworded this, let me know if you think the newer version is better.
  • The purpose served by the comparison with the Donora and London smogs is not entirely clear to me.
  • I'll elaborate a bit about why I included that paragraph. In the aftermath of this smog, which shocked the public (and the media) in its severity, people went in search of precedents to understand the problem. Since air pollution had not been so widely publicized before, there was no frame of reference or yardstick by which to understand the present. An alarmed public was asking, "has something like this ever happened before?" The two points of reference at hand were Donora (which occurred in a small town, but was very severe and was American) and London (which was very severe and occurred in a global metropolis). The paragraph also informs modern readers, who likely want to know how bad smog events from roughly the same era had been. Since intense episodes of smog are now rare in the English-speaking world, I think the comparison is useful for most readers.
  • "It is difficult to address a given environmental problem without affecting others. Those undesired side effects can be foreseeable or unforeseeable, and are often related to a city's limited resources." – These sentences don’t have a reference. It’s not clear whether they are expressing the views of Mayor Lindsay or are in the voice of Wikipedia.
  • I've reworded and cited that passage.
  • "Despite general awareness of the health and environmental impacts of smog, other problems took priority" – This summary of the New York Times quote that follows is unnecessary and repetitive (to the point of using largely the same words).
  • You're right; I've reworded it to chop down most of the quote, but retained the part that lists what the other priorities were.
  • The final four paragraphs of the article get progressively less relevant, in my view. The second paragraph says no more than "other things have been compared to the 1966 smog" and mentions ad hoc journalistic comparisons that aren't likely to be of much significance. The third paragraph lowers the tone of an otherwise sober, scientific article. The fourth and final paragraph places too much weight upon recent political events and reads to the cynical eye like an opportunistic way to talk about Donald Trump. The discussion in that paragraph certainly belongs in Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, but does it belong here?
  • I've responded to your comment on the legacy section at length below. I'm responding in general terms, mostly on broad POV or notability grounds since those are your concerns. If you have specific feedback about the wording in a sentence, sourcing, or another issue, I can respond again more specifically; I'm certainly open to editing the text if you think specific parts could be improved, but in the big picture I think these paragraphs are justified.

I also made some minor copy-edits. --Syek88 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Syek88: Thank you for your prompt feedback and thorough copyediting. I've responded to all of your comments above, at length where necessary. —BLZ · talk 21:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm doing this offline and my some of my comments may have been cleared up already.

  • "It was the third major smog event in New York City, following smogs of similar scale in 1953 and 1963." I would lose the repetition, that is the "smogs", by substituting some synonym, or possibly "events".
  • I've reworded it to "It was the third major smog in New York City, following events of similar scale in 1953 and 1963."
  • " Today, the smog has served as a milestone" I might say, "The 1966 smog is now a milestone" as "today" feels awkward with "has served".
  • Reworded, now reads: "The 1966 smog is a milestone that has been used for comparison with . . ."
  • I would suggest re-ordering the subsections in the Background section to put the "Warnings" first. It contains basic information, such as the sources of the smog, that help the reader understand what things were like in 1966.
  • I see what you mean; I've rearranged a bit and retitled a subsection. The "basic information" parts of the "Warnings" section has been moved to the first section, which I've retitled from "Previous smogs" to "Smog before 1966". I've left "Warnings" as the last section, and now that title is more strictly accurate as a section just about specific warnings about the possibility of a disaster, not just general awareness of smog as a problem. I want to keep "Warnings" last because it keeps the Background section as a whole roughly chronological, and I think it should follow the "City air monitoring" since the warnings were only possible with the ability to measure smog.
  • "Starting in 1953, the city opened a laboratory to monitor pollution" I would omit "Starting".
  • Fixed by a prior edit responding to Syek88's review
  • "the city developed a corresponding air-pollution alert system with three stages of alert, matching increasingly severe levels of pollution with corresponding city countermeasures." I would strike the second-to-last word, "city" as not needed.
  • Agree, fixed
  • "headquartered in Columbus Circle" I would suggest "at" for "in".
  • Fixed
  • "was authorized in 1962 by New York and New Jersey to oversee air pollution issues" The state of New York or the city?
  • The state. I haven't written about New York (city or state) prior to this article, so I wasn't sure about the best way to avoid confusion between the two. I chose to always call the city "New York City" or "the city" and reserved "New York" for the state. I also tried to limit instances where using "New York" alone could be confusing, so it typically comes up in relation to other states or with other cues that indicate the sentence is about the state. In that paragraph, I intended "Interstate Sanitation Commission" and "New York and New Jersey" would clear up that it's the state.
  • "The sources of the smog were particulate and chemical matter from factories, chimneys, and vehicles" "matter" reads oddly. Can we say "pollutants"?
  • Reworded to "The material sources of the smog were particulates and chemicals from . . ." The word "pollutants" would be too general here, since that word describes what the matter does (matter that pollutes) rather than what it is (what kind of material it is).
  • "The unusually heavy smog was evident to the crowd of one million onlookers at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on November 24.[2] Tabloids and newspapers that ordinarily ran front-page stories about the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade instead carried stories about the smog." consider shortening the second Macy's etc. to "parade".
  • Fixed
  • "requesting an emergency meeting with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, New Jersey Governor Richard J. Hughes, and other regional leaders." for clarity, I would add "be held" after "meeting" and "present" at the end of the sentence.
  • Reworded
  • "for the New York metropolitan area, including areas in New Jersey and Connecticut," to avoid repetition, I would suggest "parts of" for "areas in".
  • Reworded
  • "the city asked commuters to voluntarily stop driving unless necessary, apartment buildings to stop incinerating their residents' garbage, and apartment buildings to reduce their heating to 60 °F." I might suggest, "the city asked commuters to stay home unless necessary, and apartment buildings to stop burning residents' garbage and turn heating down 60°F.".
  • Reworded (used your suggestion except "to stay home" —> "to avoid driving")
  • "New Jersey and Connecticut asked their residents to voluntarily reduce consumption of heating, electricity, and transportation." maybe "New Jersey and Connecticut asked their residents not to travel, and to use less power and heat."
  • Reworded
  • "if the wind did not come, a first-stage alert would likely remain in effect and it may become necessary to declare a second-stage alert" "may" should be "might".
  • Fixed
  • " chocked up" This seems a bit informal. Maybe "attributed"?
  • Reworded
  • "Hundreds of sanitation workers worked overtime to transport garbage to landfills in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island,[24] with the bulk going to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island." I might simply refer to it as "Fresh Kills" to avoid the repetition. It's clear from context it was a landfill.
  • Reworded
  • "The earliest report of casualties came when President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a message delivered to Congress on January 30, 1967. " There is a redundancy problem in this sentence ("delivered" x2) Was this his State of the Union speech? If so, I would mention it as that increases the importance placed on it.
  • A "special message" from the president to Congress is formal, but is not necessarily delivered as a speech; it can just be a written letter. Such messages typically address a specific problem and request legislative action; while these messages are formal, they are less formal than State of the Union messages (which are constitutionally required and expected to be delivered as speeches) and less sweeping due to their focus on a single subject matter. There's no indication that this particular message was delivered as a speech. This source discusses LBJ's decision to deliver a voting-rights message as a speech, and helpfully notes that "[p]residents rarely deliver special messages to Congress in person to advocate for a specific bill, especially on domestic policy." In addition to removing the duplicate word, I switched out the ambiguous "delivered" (since both a speech or letter can be "delivered") and replaced it with "sent".
  • "Two major medical studies have analyzed . Leonard Greenburg — " There is a stray space before the period, but also "analyzed" requires something to analyze.
  • Another reviewer fixed this.
  • There is uncited matter in the "Urban Life" section.
  • I tightened up the sourcing there in response to Syek88's comments.
  • I might tighten that section a bit by citing examples from New York City of how white flight and the other urban harms affected things, if you have statistics available, and make it clearer when this was going on.
  • I wish I could! That section is a bit more general than I'd prefer, but I'm a bit limited by the sources. I have a bit of a catch-22 in that section. Any sources that discuss mid-century white flight in more depth would focus on general sociological forces other than the smog, while the sources that discuss the 1966 smog and white flight are very general. Any more detailed discussion would stray from the smog. White flight (and the roughly opposite trend, gentrification) are very complex topics with multiple overlapping causes; I doubt that any sociologists had studied the impact of this single smog, if such a study could even isolate the motivation of migrating populations to single causes. It may be that a source that discusses the smog and white flight exists in the academic literature somewhere, but if it does I haven't found it. Nevertheless, I thought it would be valuable to reflect the sources that indicate pollution, and this smog specifically, was likely among the many factors that motivated affluent residents to leave New York City around that time. If readers want more detailed discussion of white flight, they are going to have to turn elsewhere on Wikipedia or other sources. —BLZ · talk 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

First read-through:

  • "Open topography and favorable wind conditions prevented New York City's smog from concentrating to an uninhabitable extent." This sentence does not seem to flow well with what what comes before and after it, which talk about how New York's smog was a problem. In fact, the sentence seems contradictory with the whole article, which is about how for a few days New York's smog did become uninhabitable, to the point where it may have killed dozens of people.

November 24: Thanksgiving Day

  • First sentence uses "close call" which sounds a little colloquial, but maybe okay. But when "close call" is repeated in footnote g, I feel the repetition pushes this to the point where one wants a more encyclopedic term. Could you replace at least the instance in the footnote?

November 25: first-stage alert declared:

  • "Thomas R. Glenn Jr., the commission's director and chief engineer, recommended the alert at 11:25 a.m. after seeing instruments in New York and New Jersey that showed carbon monoxide greater than 10 ppm and smoke greater than 7.5 ppm, both for more than four consecutive hours." I know that ppm is spelled out and wiki-linked in footnote 4, which is technically before this, but for readers who don't read the footnotes, how would you feel about also wiki-linking here?


  • The first sub-heading is "Initial estimates of health effect and casualties" and the next one is simply "Casualties". Would it be an idea to change the second sub-heading to something like "Casualties: subsequent estimates" or "Subsequent estimates of casualties" to distinguish the topic more clearly from the first section?

National attention:

  • Third paragraph: two sentences in a row beginning with "According to".

That's all for the first read-through. The reviewers above already caught a couple of other points I was going to mention. I'll try to have a second read-through soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on sourcing - looks really good overall; only random thoughts and one optional recommendation from me. Note that I haven't assessed the content. This article, written from scratch about an event that checks just about every box in our systemic bias, is proof that Wikipedia is not finished.
    • Not a fan of how {{citation}} handles dates with vs without authors (why one uses parenthesis and one doesn't is beyond me). Not something in your control.
    • Bibliography does not include publisher locations, but those are marked as optional over at WP:HOWCITE.
    • Getting your hands on an original copy of Wise would be useful, as iUniverse is a self-publishing house.
    • Love the use of the subscription lock icons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yu Kanda[edit]

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the character Yu Kanda from the manga D.Gray-man. I chose to nominate due to its smaller size when compared with my previous nomination. Since English is not my first language, a fellow user from guild of copy-editors recently copy-edited. If there are any issues, feel free to point them out. I'll try hard to fix all of them. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, leaving the links to fellow users who might point out issues User:ProtoDrake, User:1989, User:Aoba47, User:Narutolovehinata5, User:AngusWOOF and User:Jaguar.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from ISD[edit]

Comment: Spotted the following things that are probably worth addressing:

  • Overlinking: Going via WP:OLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Thus, while it might be OK to link to some names once in the lead and once in the main article, that should be limit. Allen Walker is linked to three times, so his link in the "Appearances" section should be removed, as should the links to Lenalee Lee, Froi Tiedoll, Alma Karma. In the "Critical reception" section remove the repeated links to Skin Bolic, Takahiro Sakurai, Travis Willingham, Takuya Satō and Tsubasa Yonaga
  • May want to sort out the red line to Blue Tonic. If there was an article that has been deleted, you can just get rid of it.

Other than that, I think everything else is fine. ISD (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. Done.Tintor2 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. I now support this article's promotion. ISD (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • In the first paragraph of the lead, there is a repetition of the phrase "known as" in one of the sentences. This is more of a nitpick, but I was wondering if you could possibly revise this to avoid repeating the same phrase in such close proximity. It is not a major issue, but I think it would clean up and strengthen that part a little more.
  • In this same paragraph, I am not sure about the use of "however" when referring to the character's behavior with this teammates. The word choice implies a juxtaposition between him being cold towards his teammates and him not liking it when they use his first name and those two ideas seem to fall in line with one another. I would suggest just removing the "however" as the "even" is a strong enough part on its own.
  • In the phrase "a late Exorcist", would it be better to just say "a deceased Exorcist" to make the point clearer? I know that we are told to avoid euphemisms so if you are using "late" to say "dead" or "deceased" than I would suggest changing it.
  • The word "femenine" should be "feminine". I always misspell that word too for some reason.
  • I am not sure the quotation for "dumbest" is necessary as I believe you can paraphrase that part.
  • I would specify in the Willingham caption (the one with his image) that it was his work as the English voice actor.
  • Wonderful work on this article. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Good luck with getting this promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Done everything. Did I miss something?Tintor2 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. I now support this article's promotion. Great work with this as usual. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "Kanda sides with the Black Order in their fight against a the Earl's group" - error
  • " the two video games, and the crossover Jump Ultimate Stars." - is Jump Ultimate Stars one of the two video games? Or does this mean there are three?
  • " In response, Kanda impaled Hoshino angered at her for her inexperience" - I don't think this makes grammatical sense. Missing comma perhaps?
  • "with Japanese words that resemble "The one who cannot read the atmosphere. Though" - missing quotation mark in between "atmosphere" and "though"
  • "more merchandise related to Kanda and other characters was released, including a Blue Tonic" - does blue tonic need to be capitalised?

Those were all of the minor issues I could find after my first read through of this article, although they were only nitpicks. Overall this article is comprehensive and solid. JAGUAR  16:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Tried fixing everything.Tintor2 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them. I couldn't find anything wrong with this article, so I'll support. Well done! JAGUAR  17:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

ALT text is adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but I didn't get one thing. What is the issue with Willingham's image?Tintor2 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    It does redirect me to the root myspace domain. Thus it's not clear if @Jack Cox: and whoever owns that myspace domain are the same person, or what the copyright status is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. So you suggest removing it?Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Oppose at this point. I am concerned that this nomination is attracting supports at this early stage, as it is fairly clear on close reading that a lot more attention needs to be paid to the quality of the article's prose. While I appreciate that some work has gone into improving it, it is still way short of the high standards demanded of a featured article. These standards demand both grammatical correctness and clear and concise expression, avoiding excessive verbiage so that the meaning is plain even to the relatively uninformed reader. At present, I feel the article does not meet these criteria; apart from actual errors, the wording is sometimes clumsy and the meaning obscure. I know little about manga beyond what I've read in Wikipedia articles, and I was quickly confused when I tried to work through this one. I've made some detailed comments on the lead and first part of the "Creation" section; some of these points can be very easily settled, while others I think will require a bit more thought. I'll add more when these points have been addressed. I don't like opposing; however, my objective is not merely to criticise but to help bring this nomination to a successful outcome, and I hope you'll accept these comments in that spirit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • "...even disliking it when people refer to him by his first name". Clarify whether his first name is "Yu" or "Kanda".
  • "Later in the series..." – later than what? Perhaps: "As the series proceeds..."
  • "The character was created with the intention to bring a change to the series' Western setting, with his design being based on samurai." Clumsily written, suggest: "The character was created to bring a change to the series' Western setting, his design being based on samurai." I've made a minor edit to strengthen this point.
  • "As a result of the character being attractive, Kanda has been difficult for Hoshino to illustrate, as she focused more on his eyes and hair when drawing him." Hard to make sense of this as written. There is no rationale given as to why an "attractive" character should present the creator with difficulties.
  • I have written a new and simpler version of the above sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Due to his original backstory having multiple plot holes, Hoshino rewrote it to one where Hoshino created Kanda's first friend, Alma Karma, who plays in his backstory as well as alterations to Kanda's characterization". Again clumsy prose (e.g. "Hoshino rewrote it to one where Hoshino..."). Also, the grammar falls apart after "who plays in his backstory". The sentence makes little or no sense to the general reader, and needs a redraft.
  • Your minor revision doesn't improve the clarity or the grammar of this sentence. I'd try and work on it myself, but I am unsure of the point you are trying to make. Would it matter if the entire sentence was removed from the lead? Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Tried splitting the sentence to make it more clear.Tintor2 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "He is voiced by Travis Willingham in English and by Ian Sinclair in Hallow. The two parts of the sentence "in English" and "in Hallow" are mismatched. One's a language and the other an episode, presumably. Anyway, this voice actor detail is inappropriate in the lead, the function of which is to act as a broad general summary of the article. The detail is given in the main text and doesn't need to be spelled out here.
  • I've made a minor copyedit to your revision - but why is this information required in the lead? It's spelled out in the text; why do we need to be told the same minor detail twice? I suggest you replace the detail in the lead with a short summary sentence: "Various voice actors have been employed for the character, in both the original soundtrack and the English dubbed version".

Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Third paragraph: the word "Initially" is redundant at the start of the fourth sentence. In the same sentence the formulation "due to" is used for the second time in the lead (and recurs in the main text). This phrasing tends to disfigure prose, and should be reworded whenever possible.
  • You need a "his" before "character development".
Creation and design
  • Suggest "an unpublished work" rather than "one unpublished title"
  • The prose would flow better if the first two sentences were merged: "The character of Yu Kanda was carried over from an unpublished work created by Katsura Hoshino, who designed Kanda to introduce a change into D.Gray-man's Western setting."
  • Who is being quoted in the phrases "came out very naturally" and "who are like young lions"?
  • What is meant by "her amateur manga"?
  • The word "official" is wrongly used in your rewrite, but I know now what you're trying to say, and I've tweaked the prose a little. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "liked" is a wimpish word. Perhaps "admired"?
  • OK, "liked" is your preference, but leaves you with "liked" and "like" in close proximity. I've fiddled with the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "she felt" → "Hoshino felt"
  • "thought by Hoshino" → "considered by Hoshino"
  • "thought" is wrong here. The clear intended meaning is "thought about", i.e. considered. I've made the change. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "the official ones": there's nothing "official" here. Do you mean "the final version"?
  • "By the release of the series' tenth volume, Hoshino wrote a joke about how she missed Kanda. In response, Kanda impaled Hoshino, angered at her for her inexperience as he claimed he did not know how to illustrate him well." Don't know what this is about - it seems to be merging reality with fantasy. How necessary is this potentially confusing snippet?
  • No clearer yet, I'm afraid. I'm particularly confused by " he claimed he did not know how to illustrate him well." What does this mean? Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've modified this with a further copyedit. I think it makes sense now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

*"This contrasted other characters such as Reever Wenham and Malcolm C. Rouvelier based on their older looks". The verb "contrasted" needs "with", but even so I'm not clear what point the sentence is making.

  • "The original idea for Kanda's feminine looks is that he was originally..." Ugly repetition (original/originally) - delete one. Also, "basis" would be better than "idea", which is used in the next sentence.
  • "When Hoshino could start with the character's backstory, both Kanda and his best friend, Alma Karma's, designs were made to contrast each other, with Kanda retaining his feminine looks while Alma appeared more masculine." Unnecessarily wordy: you could simplify to "In the backstory the designs for Kanda and his best friend, Alma Karma, contrasted with each other, Kanda retaining his feminine looks while Alma was presented as more masculine".
  • "This was done in order to hide the fact that Karma is actually the reincarnation of the woman Kanda has been searching for". I'm confused. Earlier in this paragraph you say that this idea was "scrapped".
  • I've dealt with the above three points by some inventive copyediting. At least the results are grammatical. If I have altered the sense, let me know and we'll work further on it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why has Hoshino suddenly become "the author"? better to stick to the name.
  • The derivation of Kanda's name would be better placed at the beginning of the paragraph, rather than being stuck on the end as an afterthought. You could also clarify what you mean by "volume twenty" – of what? I don't see any previous mention of 20 volumes in the series.

More to follow. Ping me when you have responded to the above Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: thanks for the feedback. Tried doing everything you mentioned. The only that confuses me is that is that I was using "the author" to avoid repeating Hoshino's last name so many times.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tintor for the speedy responses. I'll work through these this weekend and report back. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Tried rewriting those sentences in the lead. Hope it looks better now.Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Removed some and reworded others. Thanks for editing the article too.Tintor2 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done with the above, and will proceed with my prose review for the remaining sections of the article. Please be patient as this may take me some time. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Vermont Sesquicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a half dollar with a rather complicated history, both in Congress and in the preparation. There were repeated battles in Congress over this coin, not so much because of its subject, but over the idea of issuing commemorative coins at all, and things then got hairy in the Commission of Fine Arts ... well, it's a nice coin, even if the catamount on the back's a little hard to explain ... enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

  • "Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon sent a letter in opposition and three Treasury officials to testify against it in committee, arguing that the public was being confused as special coin issues entered circulation." The grammar around "to testify it" seems unclear to me. More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I've played with it a bit, does it help?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. While I will be largely busy on weekdays due to tough school classes, I know I will have time to work on this on weekends because it usually takes a while to get the coordinators to close FACs. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! Please, please review this. The last one got ignored. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school system[edit]

Nominator(s): Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Canadian Indian residential school system which involved the active removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities with the aim of assimilating them into Canadian culture. The 2015 Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) concluded that the system and it's legacy amounted to cultural genocide. The final reports of the TRC included calls to action with a focus on education and awareness about the system - this page is a step toward that goal. With Canada's 150 anniversary taking place this July, all aspects of the country's history should be highlighted including this one.Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

This is most interesting; the prose is of professional quality, and the topic worthy. I began to fade a bit in the lowermost sections, where I think some abbreviating and some minor revisions would make the going a bit easier. Here are my questions and suggestions:
  • Section heads and subheads should not refer redundantly to the article title or echo one another. My suggestion would be to remove "residential schools" from the section heads 2 and 7 and to remove the word "apologies" or "apology" from subheads 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not quite. You removed the first two but not the second group of three. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. (For real this time!)--Dnllnd (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Although two of the images have alt text, the rest will need it too.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Indigenous and aboriginal are usually lowercase, but in this article they begin with an uppercase letter. I would recommend lowercase unless there is some special reason for uppercase.
In Canada Indigenous is, today, most commonly capitalized. The Government of Canada style guide is a good point of reference. Generally, the word is capitalized when discussing peoples, cultures or communities in the same way we use European or Canadian.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a perfectly good special reason. Might I suggest adding a note about these preferences that includes a link to the style guide, as above. The Canadian style guide on these matters is interesting and relevant, and referring to it might head off future "fixes" of things that don't need fixing. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I have added in a Notes section and a note next to the first instance of 'Indigenous' explaining the capitalization. Rephrasing suggestions, if required, would be appreciated. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The article includes many direct quotations. Each needs a citation placed in the text directly after the quotation; in some cases that means that the paragraph containing the direct quotation will have more than one citation even if the whole paragraph relies on the same source; i.e., citation for direct quote and somewhere later, citation or citations for the other stuff. For example, the third paragraph of Financial compensation has three direct quotations. Each needs its own citation; you should add two more, one for Fontaine and one for Cotler even though all three share the same source.
I have gone through and added refs immediately after direct quotes. Quotation adherence was flagged by another editor, below, which I have also tried to address. Since there are so many quotes through out the page I expect I likely missed some, so let me know if any outstanding instances jump out.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful to spell out and abbreviate Truth and Reconciliation Commission on first use in the main text and then use TRC from then on. It appears often in the lower sections, which seem a bit more populated by government-speak and less lucid to me than the early sections. Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a big mouthful each time.
I have replaced all full references to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with TRC after the first mention in the lead.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Was there any organized non-indigenous resistance in Canada to the TRC or, more generally, to do anything at all to make amends? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere if only in a note.
Not that I know of. The most recent news event that may speak to your question is Senator Lynn Beyak insisting that a focus on the negative aspects of the system (like deaths, forced removal of children, and inter-generational trauma) has overshadowed the 'good' of the system. I don't believe that including her views adds substantive value to the page as it serves only to undermine what has been legally recognized as systematically abusive and harmful legacy. I am, though, open to other views on this point.--Dnllnd (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Yep! Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "is the result of Imperial colonialism" – Lowercase "i"?
  • "resisted by Indigenous communities who were unwilling to leave their children for extended periods of time" – Delete "of time" since "periods" already says it?
Done.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "and foundling colonial children limited Church resources..." – Lowercase "church"?
Government involvement
  • The direct quotation at the end of the first paragraph of this section is supported by a citation to a PDF file that is more than 1,000 pages long. To be useful, the citation needs to include a specific page number. Ditto for any other long works cited in the article.
Agreed. Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Parental resistance and compulsory attendance
  • Should the "baby bonus" be explained either in the main text or a brief note?
I've added a wiki link to a page explaining the term wrt Canada.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Conditions in residential schools
  • "The Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission..." – Better as "executive summary of the TRC"?
This is the official name of the document, so using the capitalization is most appropriate. I will, though, clean up how often it appears by making use of the TRC acronym, as you suggested in another comment.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "would imply a difficult to prove legal responsibility" – Perhaps hyphenate "difficult-to-prove"?
Mortality rates
  • "Indian population of Canada has a mortality rate of more than double that of the whole population, and in some provinces more than three times." – Generally, the supporting citation for a direct quote should be inserted immediately after the end of the quotation.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1920 and 1922, Dr. A. Corbett was commissioned..." – It's preferable to use a brief description than an academic title like "Dr.". Something like "A. Corbett, professor of otolaryngology at the University of X Medical School" if you have the information necessary.
Agreed. Unfortunately there isn't much info about Corbett, but I have added text indicating that he was a physician from Regina. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I have gone through and added similar text to others named without any context.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Missing children and unmarked graves
  • "later 'razed' by priests or built over" – Is "priests" the right word? It seems to point to a subset of the church schools.
Text revised and refs cleaned up. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Self-governance and school closure
  • "after being run by the Oblates" – Should "Oblates" be linked to something?
Done.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's still unlinked and unexplained. Am I missing something? Finetooth (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The first reference to oblates, which appears in the Government involvement section, is linked to the Oblate page in keeping with WP:BTW. Do you think it's necessary to link all occurrences? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Reconciliation attempts
  • "Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis..." – "Coined" seems not quite right. Would "Called 'the Okra Crisis' by media outlets,"?
Revised to "Referred to by media outlets as the Oka Crisis.." --Dnllnd (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis, the land dispute sparked a critical discussion about the Canadian government's complacency regarding relations with Indigenous communities and responses to their concerns prompting then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to underscore four government responsibilities: 'resolving land claims; improving the economic and social conditions on reserves; defining a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments; and addressing the concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.' " – Too complex. Suggestion: break it in two with a terminal period after "communities". Delete "and" and proceed with "Responses to their concerns prompted...".
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Financial compensation
  • Lowercase "settlement agreement" throughout? Too many things with big letters reduce the overall effect of big letters.
It's a diminutive of the official name, but it was also given an acronym (which was inconsistently used!), so I've subbed that in as much of the refs happen within one section.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has identified the Indigenous-led mental health and healing infrastructure provided by the AHF as a gap in how current mental health crises being experienced by Indigenous communities, like the suicides occurring in the Attawapiskat First Nation, are being addressed." – The infrastructure isn't the gap. Suggestion: "Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has said that the loss of AHF support has created a gap in dealing with mental health crises such as suicides in the Attawapiskat First Nation."
  • "Following an illegal process, including an examination of the Settlement Agreement by the courts of the provinces and territories of Canada, an "opt-out" period occurred." – I don't understand this. Should "illegal" here be "legal"?
Typo! Fixed. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Reconciliation projects
  • The first two paragraphs repeat the word "healing" six times. How about substituting "services that assist former residential school students and their families in recovering" in the first paragraph and "to sustain their active participation in these recovery efforts" in the second?
Paragraph has been removed and remaining text in section has been collapsed into other sections of the article. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "with the publication of a multi-volume, 4,000-plus-page report..." – Do we need to mention the length again since it's in the lede and once more in the text already ?
I changed the text in the lead so that the 4,000 info only appears once, withing the section dedicated to the TRC later in the article.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I would consider deleting the first paragraph of this section since it seems to echo what's already been said in the Reconciliation projects section, and I would prefer "Recovery" to "Healing", which is overused.
I removed the first paragraph and merged the remaining section into TRC section that appeared in what was formally the Reconciliation attempts section. Reconciliation attempts has been revised and restructured with edits to text and sub-headings in an attempt to cut down on the repetitive nature of the last third of the page. The TRC now appears within it's own section. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Driveby comments[edit]

  • Many quotations violate MOS:LQ.
Thanks for flagging this. I believe that I have addressed most of the instances that failed to meet the MOS guidelines. Specific instances of any I may have missed would be appreciated.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you'll reconsider the use of {{rp}}—they're such an eyesore and disrupt the text. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Given the contentious nature of this topic, acknowledgement of which has been a hard fought battle for Indigenous communities impacted by the system, the rp references are an important part of the page as they facilitate the location of information that people have made a habit of dismissing. This is particularly relevant in regards to the TRC reports - they each span several hundred pages.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Grey-necked wood rail[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a rail that can be found in Central and South America. I came across it when I was updating pages with information from a new book I bought, and I wanted to learn more about this bird. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


  • Images look good:
  • No range map?
Shoot... I forgot that. Will request one. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It is usually not found at elevations about 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) - about → above, I think.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Link for "nominate"?
Done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • duller look - is this just in terms of coloration or are they genuinely more boring to look at?
Colouration—specified. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead comprises nearly a quarter of the readable prose in the whole article. Could stand to be shaved down a little.
Well, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole text, and, to be honest, it would be hard to shave much off without losing the representation of whole sections in the lead. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It was eventually moved, although, to the genus Aramides, - "although" not needed... I don't see any real contradiction.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is in reference to how the birds of the genus Aramides resemble those of the genus Aramus. The specific epithet, cajaneus, is in reference to the capital city of French Guiana, Cayenne. - somewhat wordy. Any way to tighten this up?
I tried to make it a bit more concise, is it good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a minor style comment, but it's a little unwieldy to have three consecutive links in the last sentence of the "Etymology" section. Philosopher is probably common enough that it can be unlinked.
Ok, done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm accustomed to seeing ranges in weight and dimensions. Are these birds all 38 cm and 460 oz without much deviation?
Added range. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This moult occurs during the months from March to June. - "during the months from" → simply "from"?
I would prefer not, as otherwise there would be two choppy sentences right next to each other. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • For berries, this bird will jump high to break of clusters of this fruit. - I think that should be "off", but I'm also a little confused about the jumping business. From where does it jump and how high?
I changed "of" to "off", but the source does not say from where it jumps and how high. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • in addition to being selfish. - in what sort of behavior does this selfishness manifest?
Added RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • it is adversely affected by destruction of its habitat. - seems a little vague, as I can't imagine a species that wouldn't be adversely affected by its home being destroyed. Are the biggest threats to its habitat man-made?
Removed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The intro says it's eaten by people in northern Brazil, but the "human interaction" section mentions both Brazil and Panama. Maybe just use "in some places" for the lead.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall, some sections seem a little light on the info... I'd have liked to know more about its habitats, behavior, interactions with people, etc., but I'm willing to accept that it just hasn't been studied or written about in much detail. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it hasn't been studied much at all. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses. I'm satisfied with how my comments so far have been dealt with (though a couple ref errors have been introduced). Bird articles (and biology in general) are a bit outside my wheelhouse, so I'd like to wait for other editors to comment before supporting, but I don't really anticipate any major problems cropping up. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry—just fixed those. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments form FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. Of all the images available on Commons, the current taxobox image doesn't really seem to show the bird well, neither in pose or colour. Sure there's nothing better here?[1] The article also looks empty in general, could maybe need some more images of it wading or such.[2][3] FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Does this look good for the infobox? [4] RileyBugzYell at me | Edits
Oh, foreshoretening perspective isn't good for showing how the animal looks, a profile view with non-tinted colours would be best. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Does this look good? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section looks very underdeveloped. I'm sure we know what it's closest relatives are, what family it is in, etc. I don't think the tiny subsections there are necessary either.
Well... I will add the family, but I can't find the closest relatives, oddly enough. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at Google scholar? When I search this bird's name, the first article that comes up is called "A taxonomic review of Aramides cajaneus (Aves, Gruiformes, Rallidae) with notes on morphological variation in other species of the genus".[5] Seems like a pretty big oversight this recent source hasn't been used. I'd advise anyone to search Google scholar when writing articles here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
What? I use Google Scholar but I did not see that. That is really weird. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems there's a lot of stuff there that needs to be incorporated into the article (even a species split has been propsoed). Also, the ZooKeys journal is CC licenced[6], so we can actually use their media here if we want. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Does it look good now? There honestly isn't much that is useful to add. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I see a lot more info that would warrant inclusion. There are mention of other species that were once considered subspecies of this (up to nine), that there has been much historical disagreement over how to classify the species and subspecies, that it is the most widespread member of the genus, the bird was named based on an illustration, and I could go on and on. I don't see a justification not to expand the taxonomy section quite a bit, given this amount of unused information. There is also a very long list of synonyms, though only one is listed in this article. There is also detailed information about its range, plumage variation, and song variation between subspecies, which is not mentioned here, but should be. You just have to read through it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think I'm done. I didn't get really anything from the section on vocalizations, as I am focusing on the subspecies recognized by the IOC—the nominate and avicenniae. I did mention the other subspecies of dubious validity, but otherwise, not much else. Is it good? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Anything else? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Althea[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most destructive cyclones ever to strike the state of Queensland in the modern era. A lot of the meteorological background and damage statistics are relatively straightforward, but this disaster is arguably most notable for having kickstarted Australia's initiative toward cyclone-resistant building codes. Although Althea was overshadowed by the infamous Cyclone Tracy just a few years later, its legacy can still be seen in the way homes are built in Queensland and across the country. I firmly believe this is the most comprehensive account of the cyclone available anywhere, on the internet or otherwise, and for that reason I'm nominating it for featured article status. As always, my sincere thanks for any comments and suggested improvements. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Riley[edit]

I will start out with some quick comments, and then will provide more comments later (Note: If I stop reviewing at any time and if all of my comments were addressed or commented on, please disregard this or regard this as a weak support).

  • In the infobox, the dates use MDY, while the article uses DMY dates. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I don't see any MDY in the infobox. Where should I be looking? – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I see them on the infobox and it comes down to you using the Start and End date templates, which i assume automatically places the date format in the users preffered format which i personally kind of like.Jason Rees (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I swapped to the {{start date}} templates so it could display the dates in the proper DMY format for consistency. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if the term "Category 4 severe tropical cyclone" could be linked. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Althea likely continued to organise until landfall, which occurred at 23:00 UTC on 23 December – 9 a.m. local time on Christmas Eve – near Rollingstone, about 50 km (30 mi) north of Townsville," what is the local time? And, why does this need to be mentioned, it was not mentioned anywhere else (the local time). RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Time zone added. I usually like to mention local time for landfall since it's sort of a benchmark in the storm's history. In this case most sources usually emphasize that the worst of the storm struck on Christmas Eve, so I wanted to preserve that. Can remove if you think it's unnecessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good now. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Does both "city" and "offshore" in the phrase "city and offshore", in the sentence "The landfall point placed the city and offshore Magnetic Island in the cyclone's powerful left-front quadrant," refer both to Magnetic Island? If so specify. If not, then what city are you referring to? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe try and specify the speed of the gale-force winds in the sentence "Because of the tight pressure gradient between Althea and the high pressure area to the south, gale-force winds extended well to the south of the cyclone's centre." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As specific windspeeds are mentioned later on in "Impact", do you still think it's needed here? That line is mostly meant to convey that the winds were strong over an unusually large area... I'll try to clarify. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The strongest winds were likely situated under the contracting outer ring, which shrank from 55 to 39 km (34 to 24 mi) between 21:00 and 23:00 to become the dominant eyewall," the time system (like UTC) needs to be specified. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the same sentence, "The strongest winds were likely situated under the contracting outer ring, which shrank from 55 to 39 km (34 to 24 mi) between 21:00 and 23:00 to become the dominant eyewall," it would be good to define "outer ring" and "eyewall" to all of us non-hurricane/cyclone fanatics. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I refuse to believe there's anyone who isn't a tropical cyclone fanatic. (clarified a bit.) – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "At 00:00 UTC on 28 December, the cyclone reached a tertiary peak with 10-minute winds of 110 km/h (70 mph), but as it turned more toward the south, increasingly cooler sea surface temperatures took their toll on the cyclone," it might be better to say "a third peak" instead of "a tertiary peak", as commonly used words are better if they reach the same level of precision. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be better to give the time in the format you use for UTC (without "a.m.") in the sentence "At 9 a.m. AEST on Christmas Eve, Althea struck the coast of Queensland near Rollingstone, about 50 km (30 mi) north of Townsville." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe link "surf" in the sentence "A significant 3.66 m (12.0 ft) storm surge battered the mainland, while rough surf destroyed roads and seawalls." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You say "ten" (spelled out) in the sentence "Ten people in Townsville were reported missing during the cyclone: nine on three boats that were unaccounted for, and one whose car was found in a swollen creek," yet you do not spell out 10 elsewhere. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:NUMERAL, the number "8" needs to be spelled out in the sentence "In the village of Horseshoe Bay, one woman died in a building collapse, and reportedly only 8 out of 150 houses in the community survived the cyclone." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's actually correct as it is per WP:NUMNOTES, which says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures". I very well could be wrong though... that's one part of the MoS I've never been able to fully grasp. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, keep as is then. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe try for simpler language, like not "denuding", "The winds were strong enough to bend large steel utility poles and lift houses off their foundations, while entirely denuding trees of their leaves." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You give specific percentages for totally demolished and critical but repairable damage, but you say "about" for the minor damages. This is in the sentence "One post-storm survey of 6,000 houses in Townsville found around 0.7% totally demolished, 1.7% with critical but repairable damage, and about 13% with minor damage." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Several months after the storm, the Townsville City Council reported that 200 houses had been leveled, 600 more rendered uninhabitable, and as many as 4,000 damaged," the quantities are too unlikely to not be an "about" value. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've added "about" for the first figure... is that sufficient or do you think it should be repeated for the others? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that it should be good. It might also be nice, to give the reader a sense of scale, to mention how about one in a hundred houses were destroyed, according to FN 19. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Good call, added. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Link "War Service Homes Commission" and possibly say "about" or something to that effect in the sentence "Among the structures damaged or destroyed were 200 Queensland Housing Commission homes and 500 of the 700 War Service Homes Commission dwellings in Townsville." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What now is "horizontal beach erosion"; "Between Pallarenda and Rowes Bay, beaches receded by as much as 15.8 m (52 ft), with up to 12 m (39 ft) of horizontal beach erosion reported at Balgal Beach near the cyclone's landfall point." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Hydrodynamic model simulations predict that for a cyclone like Althea, the Great Barrier Reef would have very little dampening effect on the storm surge," does not have a very good transition, and it doesn't really make sense. Maybe say something like "Although the Great Barrier Reef has a general dampening effect on storm surges, this was not the case for those caused by Althea. Hydrodynamic model simulations predicted that for cyclones as powerful as Althea, the Great Barrier Reef would have a minimal dampening effect on the storm surge." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I just removed that bit entirely. Too technical for our purposes. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe add an "about" before "$1 million" in the sentence "Trees and power lines in the community were mangled, nearly every building was unroofed, and damage amounted to $1 million." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Couple responses posted above, otherwise I've carried out all of your helpful suggestions. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In 12 hours after what? "Inland rainfall rates reached 250 mm (9.8 in) in 12 hours, resulting in widespread flash flooding over western and southern Queensland." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe mention the severity of the tornados/tornadoes in the sentence "Two tornadoes embedded within the cyclone's outer bands touched down in Bowen, causing damage to buildings and vegetation." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything about the tornadoes beyond what's already there. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The comma after New South Wales in the sentence "Damaging thunderstorms in the suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales, on 25 December were broadly attributed to the weather pattern associated with Althea," either needs to be removed or balanced out with another comma, say, one after December. Otherwise it reads weirdly. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Specify the country of the Prime Minister in the sentence "Prime Minister William McMahon soon traveled to Townsville to assess the damage and authorise the distribution of emergency grants for affected residents." I mean, foreign aid is a thing. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe say "Government of Australia" instead of "Commonwealth Government" in the sentence "The Commonwealth Government reimbursed Queensland for an estimated $5.5–6 million spent by the state on recovery," as I am sure that there is more than one commonwealth. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Only isolated instances of looting were reported after the disaster," the word "only" sounds a bit odd. Maybe drop it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The comma after Northern Territory in the sentence "The trend of more rigorous construction specifications in the country was bolstered when Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin, Northern Territory, three years later," sounds a bit odd. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The last part of the sentence "The severe cyclones prompted Queensland to develop its first state-wide building regulations in 1975; the new Queensland Home Building Code was fully adopted by the mid-1980s," sounds a bit odd. Maybe drop the "by" and replace it with "in"? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A larger number compared to what? "Under the new regulations, roofs had to be securely anchored using larger numbers of bolts and reinforced fastenings." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Done! Thanks for the detailed review; your suggestions have certainly helped to improve the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I also left a reply to one of your replies, and that seems to be all that needs doing. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Really good article, and very interesting. Amazing job! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the detailed review and subsequent support, both much appreciated. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Use one or the other of either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. Don't use both.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Whoops, dashes fixed. My preference for one or the other seems to be quite mood-dependent. Your edits look great, as always; many thanks for the prose review and assistance. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

This article reads really well throughout except for a bit of choppiness in the final section. I've suggested two sentence mergers that I think would help, and I have just five other minor suggestions.
Meteorological history
  • "the system reached tropical cyclone status around 06:00 UTC on 20 December" – Link UTC on first use?
  • "by the canopy of cirrus clouds" – "a" rather than "the" since the cirrus clouds have not been mentioned earlier in the article?
  • "increasingly cooler sea surface temperatures took their toll on the cyclone" – "Weakened" instead of "took their toll on"?


  • "At the end of December, it was announced that the state and federal governments..." – Rather than the passive "it was announced that", it would be better to say who did the announcing if you can. If you don't know, maybe "officials announced that".
  • "Emergency vehicles, specialised personnel, electric generators, refrigerators, food rations, and other critical supplies were ferried to the island. Medical officers rushed to limit the spread of gastroenteritis on Magnetic Island after several cases were reported following the cyclone." – Here's a pair that you might combine as "Emergency vehicles, specialised personnel, electric generators, refrigerators, food rations, and other critical supplies were ferried to the island, and medical officers rushed there to limit the spread of gastroenteritis after several cases were reported."
  • "Isolated instances of looting were reported after the disaster. Multiple local merchants were investigated for alleged price gouging." – Merge these two with a ", and"? I don't think either this combo or the first one would create a run-on sentence, but if you disagree, you might find another way to vary the sentence structures a bit more in this section.


  • The four images in the main text need alt text.
  • Thank you for the review and very helpful copyediting, Finetooth. I've acted on your above points and tried to smooth out the "aftermath" section a bit to improve flow and reduce choppiness. I'm sure my alt text leaves much to be desired, but hopefully it's close to where it needs to be. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Your changes look fine, and the article is well-written, well-illustrated, and interesting. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf[edit]

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Dire wolf (Canis dirus), an extinct species of the genus Canis and one of the most famous prehistoric carnivores in North America. The article has been nominated for Featured Article level because very recently it has achieved GA status, has been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors, and has undergone Peer Review. The article receives on average almost 2,000 visitors each day, which is around half of the number received by the modern "Gray wolf" and "Coyote" articles, indicating Dire wolf's popularity. William Harris • (talk) • 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

I'll be reviewing from the "I'm not an expert, but prehistoric animals are cool" perspective, which I suspect represents a high percentage of the readers for this type of article.

The article gets around 2,000 visitors each day on average. I assume most of these visitors will fall into this class. Later in the year with the final episode of "Game of Thrones", I expect that number will reach a new peak.
  • Page numbers given with the footnote numbers are sometimes prefaced with a 'p'; sometimes they are not. No preference on my part, but it should be consistent.
All references are populated using WP:CITE templates. A closer examination will show that journal articles show simply numbers, however books will show pp when referring to a range of pages or just a single p when referring to a single page. These are the correct citations as referred to in research articles.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the page numbers that appear next to some footnote numbers in the body, through the use of the {{rp}} template. The 'p' is added there manually in some cases. If you are varying this to match how the cite templates format p age references in the corresponding full citation, I would say that is unnecessary and distracting. --RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The distracting "p" is unnecessary and now removed.
  • The phrase "its extinct competitor Smilodon fatalis" would be better as "its extinct competitor, the sabre-toothed cat Smilodon fatalis" or something similar. I know readers can follow the link, but a brief aside to give the common name (on first mention, not necessarily every time) would be friendlier to the many readers who don't know species names. The article does this sometimes, but not consistently. For example, Canis armbrusteri gets a parenthetical with the common name on first mention in the body, but not in the lead.
Both Actioned.
  • From the infobox, I'm guessing that Canis mississippiensis was determined to be synonymous with C. dirus. But while the other variants have this explained explicitly, this one is mentioned as a discovery with no further explanation or follow-up.
The article is nearly 90kb in size, and there is a vast amount of information for a reviewer to store in memory in the first sitting. It should be covered under "and in 1912 Merriam formally recognized all of the previously found specimens under the name of C. dirus." I have just added the words "previously found" after your prompting to help highlight that Merriam had recognized all of the earlier specimens under this name.
  • The Evolution section is a bit of a slog due to the varying theories that often involve lots of recitation of taxonomic names. No specific recommendation or request about that from me, just pointing it out; maybe someone with more experience in this type of article will have suggestions.
I concur that the Taxonomy/Evolution section is the most complex part of the article. To some readers, it will also be the most interesting. (The taxonomic history and lineage of wolves is what I do here on Wikipedia and in wolf articles I usually limit myself to just that, however in the case of the Dire wolf I thought the material provided to visitors in the rest of the article needed a serious review.)
I have made edits to the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section to help restructure, simplify and clarify it.

About halfway through so far, so posting these notes and will circle back with comments on the remainder. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the early start. William Harris • (talk) • 10:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Back at last for round two. The edits from your responses to me above and Cas Liber below all look good, so I only have a few additional comments:

  • Per the discussion with Cas below, I see a few instances of 'extant' were replaced with 'modern', including the first instance that had the link to Extant taxon. But several more instances are still in the article. I would think that either they should all be replaced, or the first remaining instance should have the link.
I have replaced extant entirely with either "modern" or "living" to make the reading a bit easier for our visitors.
  • I agree with Cas that the sentence about teeth fracture rates is a bit awkward.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • I also agree with questioning nine citations for a half sentence. Seems like citation overkill.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • There seems to be some inconsistency in the Extinction section. At the end of the first paragraph, it is "assumed" that dire wolf extinction was caused by megaherbivore extinction, but in the next paragraph, the cause of dire wolf extinction is controversial.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • Having a single sentence paragraph at the end is a little awkward. Perhaps this information could be combined with one of the other paragraphs in this section?
Now joined to the end of the preceding paragraph.

I made a couple of small edits; other than the few points above, I think the article is looking good. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and comments. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
All my concerns have been addressed, so happy to support. --RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. I was not completely happy with the Extinction section in the past but I think it really flows well now. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the map
Hello, the map has now been scaled up to 300px; please let me know if you believe it needs more.
  • File:Dogs,_jackals,_wolves,_and_foxes_(Plate_V).jpg is missing a description and date
Referred to the editor who uploaded it - I will follow up.
Seems the info has been added now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Canis_dirus_reconstruction.jpg: what is this based on?
Referred to the editor who uploaded it - I will follow up. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that artist is active here anymore, but per this discussion[7], you can just provide a source for something that makes it verifiable that the appearance matches known skeletal proportions and theories, even if you don't know exactly what he based it on. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I believe the ex-editor in the link is not the uploader, and he is addressing these issues now. I will forward your comment. I expect that he will either clarify the images or replace them. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, right, I thought it was this image[8]. Yeah, it seems a link has been provided to the skeleton photo the first one was drawn after. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In the same way that Wang and Tedford ("Dogs:Their Fossil Relatives") had the benefit of Mauricio Antón's illustrations based on skeletal remains, the Ice Age wolf-related articles have the benefit of editor Mario Massone's illustrations. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Funkmonk[edit]

Support - I had my say at the peer review[9], so have little more to add. Just to say something new, I'm always a sucker for showing type specimens, so if an old lithograph could be found, it might be a nice addition to the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chance would be a fine thing. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • One other thing I just thought of is that maybe we could have a size comparison image showing the size of the two dire wolf subspecies in relation to a human? Like the one in the description section of Smilodon? That may also help dispel the GOT myth that these wolves were somehow the size of lions... FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That type of graphic is well beyond my skills and software, unfortunately. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you're interested, I can take a stab, we can discuss it on our talk pages if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Let us do that. I think the exercise worthwhile, and because C. d. dirus has the same dimensions as the Yukon wolf - apart from weighing a third more! - the Yukon wolf would be the model and therefore the graphic could be applied to other wolf-related articles. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas liber[edit]

Taking a look now - free time is patchy so might be coming and going. Will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

We look forward to them. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would not link extant in lead. Just say "living" in plain English.
  • In para 3 of the Taxonomy you can drop one mention of "two subspecies" - either remove There are two subspecies of C. dirus. or somehow trim the second mention.
  • A South American origin for C. dirus has been proposed. - redundant as repeated about three sentences later.
  • Attempts to extract DNA from tarpit specimens have been unsuccessful. - redundant as repeated soon after.
Agreed and addressed. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • These higher fracture rates were across all teeth but not more often the canines when compared to the modern carnivores. - reads awkwardly.
Simplified to: "These higher fracture rates were across all teeth, however the fracture rates for the canine teeth were the same as modern carnivores."
  • The extinction of the large carnivores and scavengers is thought to have been caused by the extinction of the megaherbivore prey upon which they depended - err, any reason why this sentence needs so many references?
Reduced to 2 secondary sources, and 2 primary sources by recognized "heavyweights" in this field.
  • ...but the cause remains controversial - are there other hypotheses? If not, why not just say "unclear"?
There are a few alternatives hypotheses given at the start of that sentence that I did not elaborate on as they were getting outside of the scope of the article and are general extinction subjects in themselves - links have now been added to these subjects. However, I have amended an earlier sentence to read: "One model proposed to explain the extinction of the large carnivores and scavengers is the extinction of the megaherbivore prey upon which they depended, and it is proposed that this also explains the extinction of the dire wolf in both North and South America." This now provides an introduction for the other models proposed in the following paragraph. I trust this covers it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall, I now support on comprehensiveness and prose. It possibly has more context than I would put in but not much, and it's no dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. We have removed some unnecessary sentences and simplified the verbiage used in other sentences. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

One of those metals with most effect on humans throughout history. I've deeply enjoyed writing the article myself and from some comments I've got so far I see it must be good to read as well. Comments, positive or negative, are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • I'll come back to the intro section later ... for the moment, it looks fine, but I might want to move one or two points up to the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not too important but: you use semicolons where commas would be better, in many cases.
  • "lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor from 3000 BC, from 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; and in Athens, Carthage, and Sicily": That's not what "from" means in AmEng. ("were first worked ... in 3000 BC") Also, did it start in 2000 BC in Athens? If not, add "later" or something.
A good one, thank you; "since" seems more natural anyway.
It's hard to say when exactly it began in Athens; the source is only clear on Asia Minor and Iberia. I found a source, however, that claims the trade had extended to Greece by 1600 BC. Added this and updated the reference.
Thank you for your support and for your go-over with this article; it was quite good and made the prose a tad more concise.--R8R (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • My first comment is that the "Main isotopes of lead" table is a complete duplicate of the "Most stable isotopes of lead" so it is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a part of a general discussion of a reform of the element infobox. It seems the isotope table is up to go from the main infobox or there will be a small table in the main infobox and a separate big table, not entirely sure. Now, however, that the tables are still exactly the same, I removed it from the main infobox for the time being.
I object the removal. An infobox is supposed to summarize information from the article (body), so a repetition can and should be expected. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, R8R Gtrs: I formally propose (request) to re-add the isotopes to {{Infobox lead}}. Per WP:INFOBOX, it should summarize the article, and so repeating info that is in the body is by intention. One could propose to change that infobox header into 'Main isotopes' (not 'Most stable'), and adjust the list. To be clear: the table in the article section 'Isotopes' should be there to make the section complete & better by itself, not to replace an infobox function. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It is fair enough to be in the article body, but with more information. If any short lived isotopes are natural, they should be there. Other columns could be added such as spin or exact isotopic mass.
  • "Many pseudohalides are known." → "Many lead pseudohalides are known." so that sentence can stand alone.
Yes, done.
  • Plumbane is not an organic compound, even if it is an analog of methane. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "The lead analog of the simplest organic compound, methane, is plumbane." Leaving plumbane in the organic section, though, because it is commonly discussed with the organolead compounds.
  • "lead commonly used as the whitener" is not strictly correct as it was a compound. could this be reworded?
I used "in."--R8R (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added one based on the caption in the article.
I am quite confident this is not a subject to copyright, as it is a very simple graph of numeric data. There are licenses for such simple graphs if I recall correctly. Will check in a few hours.
I believe the original image would go under commons:Template:PD-text; from that perspective, I think, licensing must be okay?--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am unconvinced. The actual text used, where it is placed on the graph, how it links to the graph points, the graph points themselves, the numbers on the scales are all part of a creative choice in making the whole graph. If the text was arranged in a different way, then you could get away with the PD-text for the text, but the graph still has quite a bit more creative elements subject to copyright. You can compare with the alterations in File:Evolution production plomb.svg which I think are OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please take a look now. I am not sure if this is an aesthetical gain, but the alterations must be sufficient?--R8R (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is better. I would also convert 100 to 1 as it is a bit obscure, and 102 could go to 100 as it can fit. Also BP should probably change to a year as BP numbers is changing all the time! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
We could fit even 1,000,000; but for logarithm-based scales, it's just plain easier to see the trend "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6" than "1--100--10^4--10^6"; when put before such a sequence, first first take half a second to transform that back to "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6". This wouldn't be the case in any other context, but here, I think we should leave the powers as they are. Also, there is a convention about that BP that indicates the numbers will stay as they are (I was surprised, too!).--R8R (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair; done.
    • alt text for the flame test could be a bit more descriptive (for blind people) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Expanded; should be good now.
    • alt text for lead(II) oxide calls it "red powder" but it looks more like cream powder.
Yes, we used to have a different picture there and this must be a remainder. Done.
    • alt text for Chart of the final part of the s-process can be much improved perhaps to say what element transmutes to what. It is not a "greed".
I see I have misunderstood the idea of what should be in alt text; now, I've read WP:ALT and things are clearer to me now. The new alt text must be better.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • for File:Elemental abundances.svg the alt text appears to be for something else.
Why? It is a line chart and the line indeed generally declines to its right?
Sorry, I meant to delete this comment Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • alt text for the Promotional poster should say what is in it. (boy with paint brush, and perhaps all the text in the ad)
I expanded it a bit; please see if it's good now.
    • alt text for Radiography of a swan says it is X-ray like, when in fact it is an X-ray!
Ha ha, you're right! Fixed.
    • There appears to be no alt text for the lede image in infobox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • number MOS violation in infobox −23.0·10−6 should be −23.0×10−6
Done.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • According to MOS we should Link the first use of unfamiliar units: eg nΩ·m GPa (I note MPa is linked to Megapascal) neutrons/(cm2·second). I don't think we need to do this in the infobox where the property is linked as that link also covers the unit, but in the article text it should have a link.
I linked "nΩ·m" to ohm and meter; "GPa" to pascal (unit) (removing the MPa link); did not link "neutrons/(cm2·second)" to anything because there is nothing to link to and I think it's fair to say, nothing needs to be linked (it's quite intuitive: "per second per square centimeter").
Actually the first use, now "nanoohm-meters", is not linked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly should've been more careful about this one. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "They may be made by the addition of trimethyllead or triethyllead to alkenes or alkynes; these precursors may themselves be made from the corresponding lead halides and lithium aluminium hydride at −78 °C." This sentence may be true, but it appears that this is not the way that tetraethyllead was made. Trimethyllead or triethyllead appear to be ions or part of other compounds, not that important that they need a mention in the element article, so I suggest removing the sentence or replacing it. That sentence also makes the following "These compounds" unclear.
Removed, as this seemed most appropriate.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound" should be a standalone sentence as it is not related to its oxidising properties. Perhaps it should be moved up to the other bits on tetraethyllead.
It is related: I thought the current wording "The oxidizing nature of many organolead compounds is usefully exploited: lead tetraacetate is an important laboratory reagent for oxidation in organic chemistry;[80] tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound.[81]" hints at that very well. Put an "and" instead of the semicolon to clarify it further.
  • "Retrieved 2017-01-30" and "Retrieved 2017-04-12" dates in wrong format
  • What symbol should be used in formulae to link molecules together? Is it "•" or "·". Personally I like "•" as it is easier to see. But whatever is used it should be consistent.
Used the former for the same reason.
Now I see there is inconsistent use of "•" or "·" for multiplication in units as well.
It didn't occur to me I'd also have to look in the infobox. I've turned to the smaller dot, which is in the infobox right now, because maybe some articles have complied with it as well, in which case I don't want to ruin it.--R8R (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pb5Sb4S11" is messed up, in one place it appears to have spaces, and another new-lines. The Chem template is trashing it somehow by adding some sort of separator before each number. It is important to not insert separators for the case that the text is copied and used elsewhere or a "find" is used to look for something on the page. Either the Chem template can be fixed, or it should not be used in featured articles.
I do not see spaces added in my desktop nor in mobile view. But I do see "Pb 5Sb 4S 11" when copy/pasting (and I removed newlines here). That is by {{Chem}} indeed. Best is to avoid {{Chem}}. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Converted all formulas to the plain sup-sub style.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In "PbCO3" it inserts a space before the 3. (same template:Chem problem)
Same.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the last sentence "The fungus Aspergillus versicolor is effective at removing lead ions.[252] Several bacteria have been researched for their ability to reduce lead, including the sulfate-reducing bacteria Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum, both of which are highly effective in aqueous solutions." "reduce" is used in two different senses, chemical reduction, and making the amount smaller. We should probably ahve two different terms so that people do not think that lead-II is converting to elemental lead-0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
A great catch; done.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we need a Farenheit conversion in "tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C (210 °F)" as other temperatures for reactions are not converted from °C.
Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I had my doubts about "bis(disyl)plumbylene" being correct, so I checked the reference and the name is not there. Searching google scholar does not find it, and on Google it is mostly mirrors of this page. So this name need to be fixed or dropped. It probably should have "bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl" in the name perhaps bis(bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl)plumbylene (or lead)
I'll prefer dropping because such long formulas need to be mentally reconstructed back into their formulas anyway.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In "forty-three lead isotopes" normally the number wold be written using digits: 43 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, done.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The unit-cell size is missing (from infobox). This only needs one number since it is a cubic structure.
  • A question about other registries: In chemical articles we include chemspider and pubchem and possible some other registry numbers in the infobox, not just cas. Should this happen for elements too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll contact the WikiProject to work out a project-wide solution.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
These both questions cover essentially all of the elements (both would require alternations to {{infobox element}}). Can we be satisfied for the purposes of this standalone review with the fact that the discussion on the matter has been initiated?--R8R (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There are two different punctuations in "lead-acid" and "lead–acid". The former used in a reference and the latter in text. I suspect that nothing has to change though.
There was one hyphen occurrence---in a quote---so I checked there is actually a hyphen in the original and left it as was.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "osmium— the densest metal" has space after mdash. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "profile" as used in Bairagi reference: Does it really use the typographic ligature "fi" instead of "fi"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't; strange. Anyway, I removed the ligature.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Now starting review of references.

  • My first comment is that I really do not like the two level references. I would much prefer to see one click from the text footnote to the full reference. The only place for double barreled referencing is where you have different requirements for page numbers from the same reference. In any case I will review the end references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
When this new referencing system was being first introduced to the article, I was uneasy, too. What convinced me is that references look nicer and actually are available in one click (and one hover). I find that okay because when I want to know something about a ref, this is exactly what I do with it in general.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Many reference entries could include more complete names of authors, but mostly all we see is initials. Authors are more likely to be identified properly when using known first name also. THis is useful for when we wikilink to the articles on the authors.
As far as I can see, this is something sort of a personal liking thing. I generally adopted the "Last, F." system because I wanted to give it a try and because I knew it wouldn't hurt me back if I do. Many universities use this in their referencing styles.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • eg "The memory of the women's white faces: Japaneseness and the ideal image of women" missing first1= Mikiko
  • We should have authorlink1 etc for notable authors. If we have no notable authors for all the references listed then I wonder have we picked the best ones?
Good call. Will add some.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I just went through the first two columns of the reference list. Added a few links. The third column and journals to be done.--R8R (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • First mention of journals should also have a link to the article on Wikipedia. If this is done then ISSN is not needed for the well known journals.
I generally believe ISSN is not needed for any reference. This is well illustrated by how {{cite journal}} this article heavily relies on doesn't list the |issn= parameter in any of the mentioned layouts in "Most commonly used parameters in vertical format."
As for journals: good one, too, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Journals, as well as publishers, linked.--R8R (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adsorption profile of lead on Aspergillus versicolor: A mechanistic probing" is a primary reference. Perhaps a secondary is "International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology ISSN 2278-5299 Volume 3, Issue 1: Page No.24-42 ,January-February 2014" Biosorption for metal ions removal from aqueous solutions: a review of recent studies NT Abdel-Ghani, GA El-Chaghaby - Int J Latest Res Sci Technol, 2014 - (Is that journal reputable?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I spent some time wondering if this was the case and then decided I'd go for a different citation with similar content published by ScholarlyEditions. I think this must be good.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The mentioning of the quasicrystalline lead with two references to Sharma's writings may be undue. They are both primary references, and I cannot see any reviews or textbooks that mention this. A high level article like this should probably not include details like this that are not found in secondary or tertiary references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Removed.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sandbh[edit]

  • Support on the grounds that it appears to meet, subject to Graeme's astute comments being addressed, all the FA criteria. I've been a significant contributor since being asked by the nominator for help with copy-editing. I particularly enjoyed the History section.
  • Re the duplication of the lead "Main isotopes of lead" table as the "Most stable isotopes of lead" table in the main body of the article, this duplication is likely a good thing given Wikipedia articles are commonly viewed on mobile devices. Sandbh (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
At information level: a main infobox is supposed to summarize content of the article body, so some repetition of isotopes is to be expected. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to respond; thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by DePiep[edit]

As noted above (re Graeme Bartlett), I think the infobox should list the most stable isotopes as is common in all element infoboxes. I am surprised by the addition of the comment [10] about decay chains and standard atomic weight specifics, after this FAC-ing. First of all it is textual so should be in lede not infobox (and I find it very hard to understand, of course because so much info is crammed in there), but more relevant: it may be important for lead, but that does not make it infobox-worthy. Also, the second half is more describing the effects on the standard atomic weight, and about not Pb-specific situations -- even less needed in an infobox. This info should be made clear in the section #Isotopes. But as a tertiary decay info --at best-- it is not fitting the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I added it is that it means that the values we list in the infobox for abundances, as well as the atomic weight itself, may vary significantly outside the obvious range of variation. I agree that it was too long, but I think R8R has accomplished a skilful contraction that gets the main point here (a caveat lector sign, if you will!). Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It now says: "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". True of course, and also superfluous (because Ar already says so; why not added there btw?), generic not Pb-specific (for example, 12 Ar=[interval] elements are much heavier involved into this; missing the word 'Earth'), and not infobox-level: details of the multi-layered concept of standard atomic weight itself, not the element (you'd always have to look this up before it has meaning). Let the section do this job. -DePiep (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it varies this much is absolutely Pb-specific. The variation is small enough that it hasn't yet been changed to an interval, but large enough that you will very easily find samples outside the range given spanning almost the entire gamut from 204 to 208. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

It's looking a lot better than last time around. I still hate the unnecessary duplicated pronunciation guide in the infobox. Looks stupid.

Helpful to me. Visually, shall we put them together in one line? -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That might help, good idea. --John (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Couple of chemistry queries:

  • The difluoride was the first ionically conducting compound to be discovered (in 1838, by Michael Faraday).

That's quite a claim. Electrolysis was invented in 1785. Do we mean the first ionic melt?

The idea is that it was the first solid substance found to conduct electricity. Also, the date should be 1834. Both fixed.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I raise my eyebrows at the idea of a solid ionic substance conducting. Are you sure? --John (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Are we talking about fast ion conductors? Might be worth a link if so. --John (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Carbon (coke or gas) is added to the molten charge along with fluxing agents.

Are we talking gaseous carbon here? Or a gas containing carbon? If it's the former that's remarkable, if the latter we should clarify which gas we're talking about.

We're talking about coke gas. Added a wlink.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a redirect to coal gas which explains Coal gas contains a variety of calorific gases including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and volatile hydrocarbons. Can we explain a little? --John (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Coal gas was what I meant, of course. Perhaps it is best to add a note. Will do.--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Its prevalence in the human body—at an adult average of 120 mg[q]—is nevertheless exceeded only by zinc (2500 mg) and iron (4000 mg) among all metals.[209]

Really? More prevalent than calcium, sodium, or potassium?

This should be "heavy metals," of course. Added.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

May be more to come but I can see supporting this time, once these few wrinkles are ironed out.

  • Further thought: why are lead-acid batteries still so widely used in cars when we have better, safer, lighter, more energy-dense batteries now?
Because they're cheap :) --R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Could we source a sentence on that? --John (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Added. (Also, from what I see, mass is not too much of an advantage because mass of an accumulator is nowhere near comparable with that of the whole car.)--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is it diamagnetic? (This is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article!). --John (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
If you ask me, our infoboxes have a lot of information that shouldn't be there. I am struggling to convince WP:ELEM this is the case.
As for your question, here's an intriguing idea: Lead(0) itself is 6s26p1/22 [11]. (In addition to that, the next group 14 element, flerovium, has all paired electrons: [Rn]7s25f146d107p1/22; reasons for this are also found in lead, although to a smaller extent. Analogously, Bi+ is 6s26p1/22. [12].) This could very well be your answer. Not sure if we should discuss this in the text, though. (Not to mention I haven't yet seen a source saying that lead is diamagnetic because of this.) I need to consider it for a bit longer.--R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies; it might fit into the discussion of its superconductivity. Why does it superconduct at such a relatively high temperature? --John (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Diamagnetic substances are characterised by having no unpaired electrons, as Pb2+ does. The inert pair effect explains why β-Sn is paramagnetic while Pb is diamagnetic, as R8R states, and since the inert pair's effects for chemistry are already mentioned I would support adding a little sentence about the effect on the magnetic ordering. (C, Si, Ge, and α-Sn are diamagnetic for different reasons, having molecular rather than metallic structures.) About the superconductivity of Pb – this is actually also interesting: having a close-packed fcc structure it should have too much damping of the electron-phonon interaction for superconductivity (you can imagine it as there being not enough room for lattice vibrations and hence Cooper pairing). The reason why Pb still superconducts has to do with its extraordinarily high modulus of elasticity (ref). Actually all the post-transition metals (including Zn, Cd, and Hg) are superconductorsat normal pressure, except for Bi which has a semimetallic band structure and needs to be pressurised: the absence of polonium from the list is probably more a case of absence of evidence than evidence of absence. I'm still searching for a source as to why its Tc is so high compared to the elements around it, though. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The more I delve into this, the more I start thinking that this may very well be the sort of thing that cannot be explained easily without doubling the size of the section, but I shall keep trying for a while longer. Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Added diamagnetism without superconductivity; at this point I'm not even sure if the latter has an accepted explanation yet, much less one that won't drag the article's focus away for several paragraphs.. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • And I hope you can live with the trims I did here and here. In each case, we had a major repetition, of the nuclear uses and of the chemistry of lead water pipes. --John (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to keep coming up with things. Why does lead have a different crystal structure from that of β-tin? John (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • They're not completely different; the tin structure is distorted fcc (tetragonal). The inert pair effect is significantly weaker for Sn than for Pb, so I think what has happened is that while Sn gives up its 5p electrons with about as much completeness as Pb for 6p, Ca for 4s, or Sr for 5s (the examples we give), the 5s electrons are also contributing weakly, being still somewhat held by the individual Sn atoms and localised. I admit readily that this is completely my OR and I haven't found a source for it yet, but it is not unheard of elsewhere in the table: the α-γ phase change in Ce comes from the localisation of the 4f electron (source), so if the s-electrons are partially delocalised in Sn and not at all in Pb it would adequately explain the difference in crystal structures, and the partial delocalisation accounts for the structures being different but not completely different.
    • Well, my OR train of thought for this persuades me that this would be a good thing to include! Now to find a real source for it. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking good...

lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC - this sounds odd to me - I'd say from 3000 BC in this case.
since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians - ditto here
These two have actually been discussed in the beginning of this review and we've agreed "since" is okay for our AmE purposes here.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, missed that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In Europe, lead production only began to revive in the 11th and 12th centuries, - "revive" looks a bit funny here. I always think of it either as a transitive verb or in the passive
According to Merriam-Webster, intransitive "revive" is fine. Maybe that's another ENGVAR thing?--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably. I couldn't imagine writing it this way in British English, but I'm pretty sure that I've seen this construction used in American English somewhere. Double sharp (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
During the period, lead mining proved important - you can remove this - the next sentence spells it out anyway

:::A good one, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but lead is more common than most of these metals, and lead-bearing minerals are easier to mine and process than those of many other metals - cumbersome, why not just, "Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but are [generally/for the most part] less common and more difficult to extract from parent ores"
Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
One disadvantage of using lead is its toxicity, which explains why it has been phased out for some uses --> "Lead's toxicity has led to its phasing out for some uses"
Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

prose and comprehensiveness on point otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your time! Much appreciated.
(Again, I'm sorry to have forgotten to say it when first replying to the comments.)--R8R (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • From the lead section (pun not intended), paragraph 1: "When freshly cut, it is bluish-white; it tarnishes to a dull gray upon exposure to air." The infobox shows the default tarnished appearance, but it would also be nice to see a comparison with the cut bluish-white appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The sentence seems too promising. It would still be gray when freshly prepared and would only have a bluish tint. Corrected that.
For the picture, see File:Lead-2.jpg (in the text).--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the picture demonstrates "when freshly cut, it has a bluish-white tint". I don't think that the sample has been cut at all. Also, I am disappointed that the reference is a 1986 book in Russian [Polyanskiy, N. G. (1986). Fillipova, N. A, ed. Аналитическая химия элементов: Свинец]. While technically I suppose that the book meets Wikipedia's requirements as a source, it is an unhelpful reference as verification for readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • * From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It is a soft, malleable, and heavy metal." In this context, soft and malleable are adjectives, but "heavy" is not a simple adjective. A "heavy metal" is not a "metal that is heavy". The list sentence needs to be re-phrased to avoid the implication that "heavy" is just an adjective. My suggestion: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Good one. Unfortunately, your suggestion won't work (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). The solution I found best was to remove the reference to the heavy metals in general, though maybe other possibilities exist.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that lead's status as a heavy metal is worth including in the lead section. "Malleable" is an English word that shouldn't necessarily need a wikilink. Moreover, "malleable" redirects to "ductility", and "ductility" is explicitly wikilinked in paragraph 4. If you are concerned about separate wikilinks in adjacent words, I suggest: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't object mentioning that lead is a heavy metal in general. As for "'malleability' is an English word": it is, but it is one that many people don't get right. Many people think "malleable" and "ductile" are synonyms, which they are not; for this reason, we even have a note in the article about this. Also, I prefer to separate the lead from the rest of the article, in counting first links etc. Many people who read the lead won't read any further and some people who want to know something in detail won't read the lead.
How about we move the reference the lead's heaviness to the paragraph on chemistry?--R8R (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe "It is soft and malleable, and is often classified as a heavy metal?
Copying the note here won't do because lead is both ductile and malleable, and mentioning both complicates the matter. Here, we only give a subtle hint the two are not the same.--R8R (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fallout 4: Far Harbor[edit]

Nominator(s): Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this is the second Featured Article nomination for this article. Since the previous nomination, the article has gone through a few small expansions, and been proof-read multiple times by a couple of editors. I think it's at the standard of an FA, though I'd love to hear the opinions of everyone else. If you've got any ideas for the article, please list them! Recently, I've received a bit of FAC mentoring from HJ Mitchell, who also helped with the final stretch. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • As mentioned, I've been helping Anarchyte with some of the preparation and advising on FAC. It's the first time I've "mentored" another nominator, so please let me know if I've missed something. I'll watchlist this review and offer input if I think it might be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, support. I've been through this thoroughly looking for the sorts of thing I've seen hold up FACs before and and I left some detailed comments on the peer review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
Addressed comments from Aoba47
  • I think the infobox image should have an ALT description/text (I have heard some uncertainty about the value of ALT text, but I would still recommend it for the time being). I would also make sure that all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
  • In the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph, the repetition of "Commonwealth" makes the sentence read a little awkwardly. I would suggest revising this to avoid the repetition.
  • Avoid contractions, such "wasn't" in the lead, by spelling it out completely.
  • Something about this sentence reads a little awkwardly to me (The development team also noticed players' interest in expansions that added large amounts of explorable territory, and, due to the size of Far Harbor, the price of Fallout 4's season pass was increased). I understand why you put these two ideas together, but something about the way it is currently pulled together seems a little off to me and does not mesh these two ideas together as strongly as it could be.
  • Is the "fog" in this expansion pack similar to the gameplay mechanic the "fog of war". If so, do you think it would be useful to link "fog" to "fog of war" (especially since the "fog of war" article includes a section on its use in video games)? I could be over-thinking this though.
It's just fog.
  • What do you mean by "Unlike the previous iterations in the Fallout series,"? Did the previous game include more factions/fewer factions? I would make this part a little clearer to those unfamiliar with the series.
    I removed that preface as it's a tad unnecessary.
  • Add a citation for the last portion of the first paragraph in the "Setting and characters" subsection. Same goes for the end of the second paragraph in the same subsection.
    Don't synopsis/plot sections not need sources at all, or is it different when talking about the settings or characters?
    Oh, duh! Sorry for missing that. For some reason, I did not read that as synopsis/plot. You are correct with your comment that they do not need sources. I apologize for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but should titles of quests from the game be put in italics or quotations? I am referencing the reference to Brain Dead in the "Similarities with Autumn Leaves" subsection. Just wanted to make sure.
    I'm not sure. I put them there just to be safe.
    Cool, just wanted to check about this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Great work with this article. It is a very interesting read, and it is cool to read an article about downloadable content. A majority of comments are rather minor and nitpicky. I will support this nomination once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input, Aoba47 I've addressed all of your concerns, though I left two replies which you might want to look at. I've collapsed what I believe to be complete, if that's okay with you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I can definitely support this. I would greatly appreciate any comments for current FAC. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Misc. from Czar
  • There is a lot of weight put on the setting/endings (if not the plot too)—it's longer than the other sourced sections... I can't imagine why it shouldn't be shorter. Also are there really no sources available for these unsourced parts? Plot doesn't need to be sourced, but it should be verifiable in text if it can. Even a player's guide for the endings, if one's available, would work. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I've shortened both sections and added a few sources. IMO the length isn't undue, it only talks about what is necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Haven't read through (still deciding whether I want to spoil the ending) but sources like "Fallout 4: Far Harbor DLC – how to get the best ending" are exactly what I had in mind, so should be good. Those sources also make make the section a good example of how to source plot. A few other cursory points: I'd remove Game Rant (unreliable). Also from what I see at a glance, check the current WT:VG thread about FAC Reception writing re: removing some of the reviewer names, combining sentences & refs, etc. (I know I've gave comments last year, but it's a brave new FAC world) czar 02:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I've removed the Game Rant source. As for the reception section, I based it off your FA Blast Corps, in a way. I'll read over the discussion you linked me and I'll attempt to make the section more stream-lined. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Okay, I've gone through and tried to streamline some of the contents. I've also bundled up the references to be at the end of the sentence if it mentions two different websites, unless there's a quotation. Opinion? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The combinations look good but I'd go further and crunch the sentences to remove the reviewer names. However, it's fine to wait and see what other readers would think first. Even as someone familiar with games, I hate carrying the reviewer name in my head when the individual is not necessarily important to understanding the statement. The sentiment is more that one reliable reviewer made a claim, and perhaps that reviewer is associated with a publication (hence why the Blast Corps Reception is light on reviewer names—notice that Donkey Kong 64's Reception is even lighter). So I hesitate at giving a strong prescription on those points, but I do think it's easier to read the fog paragraph, for instance, when I'm not juggling reviewer names and am instead focusing on how it annoyed one reviewer, was complimented by another, and was deemed manageable by yet another. (It's also unclear whether "atmosphere" is referring to the game's ambiance or the literal foggy atmosphere, based on the paragraph.) czar 16:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I see where you're coming from, but if we remove who said what doesn't it become an issue of "reviewers[who?] thought that x was good but y was bad"? I'll see what other's opinions are first. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. To answer the question, not necessarily. If the answer is to replace reviewers with two surnames that mean nothing to the reader, it both doesn't illuminate new information while simultaneously making the prose worse (heat without light, etc.) And if "reviewers" is too summative or creates bias, "some reviewers thought" or a variation is an alternative. It's easy to tell which from the references. The point is to explain the game's reception when no source sums it up for us, not necessarily to give an accounting of who thought what. czar 06:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Famous Hobo
Addressed comments from Famous Hobo


  • Why do we need to know when Far Harbor was announced? This isn't information the reader needs to know immediately. Just list the release date, what systems it was released for, and then move on.
  • The end of the first paragraph feels a bit clunky. For example, you don't mention the game's nuclear fallout setting, which is rather crucial to the game as a whole. I would write something like "The game is set in the year 2287, in the aftermath of a nuclear fallout that destroys most of the United States. In the expansion, the player character is recruited by a detective agency to investigate the disappearance of a young girl living in a remote area." Other things to note: We don't need to know the name of the detective agency right off the bat; we also don't need to know where the detective agency operates, especially if most of the expansion doesn't take place in the Commonwealth.
    I copied your example verbatim, is that fine?
  • The player controls the protagonist throughout their investigation on the Island, a landmass off the coast of Maine where the town of Far Harbor is situated. Perhaps remove the bit about the city of Far Harbor, since you haven't introduced the reader to the city yet.
  • Do you only receive bottle caps and experience points from side quests? Having played Fallout 4, I don't think that's right. Also, delink sidequest and link the first use of quest (the sidequest link just goes to the quest article anyway).
    Changed to simply say quests.
  • There is no mention of the Autumn Leaves debacle in the lead.
    Added one sentence.


  • I don't like the current screenshot. It's too dark and could be hard for a casual reader to make out what's going on. Try and find a screenshot that's better lit, but still shows the fog effects.
    @Famous Hobo: The three in this article are good, personally, I like the sunny one on the shoreline because it's easy to view and the fog is still visible. The first one is still dark, though it shows off the fog better. What do you think?
  • Fallout 4 is the fifth installment in the Fallout series and takes place after the events in Fallout 3[2] and is set 210 years after "The Great War", which resulted in the nuclear devastation across the United States. No need to mention its connection to Fallout 3, as it has no relevance to this article. Also, do you really need to link United States? I think everyone knows what the US is.
  • Puzzle sections were not featured in the base game and thus were a new feature. No need to mention they are a new feature. If they weren't in the game originally, then of course its new content.
  • Again with only receiving money and points after completing sidequests and not main quests. I may be wrong though, I don't remember exactly.
    I've changed it to simply say quests, as even if some of them are sidequests, they're still technically quests.


  • There are three major conflicting factions present in the expansion, all residing in separate areas: the Harbormen of Far Harbor; the synth colony of Acadia; and the Church of the Children of Atom. I know what a synth is, but I don't think the reader will.
    Added a short description.
  • The expansion starts after the player completes the "Getting a Clue" quest, in which the Sole Survivor meets private detective Nick Valentine, who offers him employment.[19] This entire sentence needs to go. Feels like WP:GAMEGUIDE.


  • Far Harbor was developed by Bethesda Game Studios and was announced three months after the official release of Fallout 4—alongside Automatron, Wasteland Workshop, and teasers of other upcoming expansions—in a blog post on February 16, 2016.[24] The expansion was released on May 19, 2016 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. For the release date, just say May 19. Don't include 2016, as you already mentioned the year in the previous date. If events occurred in the same year, then you can just say the year for the first date.
  • On June 2, 2016, two weeks after the expansion's official release... Drop the date, as just saying two weeks after its release is enough information.


  • I won't get into this section too much, as it seems you're doing some cleanup with the suggestions Czar gave, but I will say that you mention that reviewers disliked the puzzle sections in both the first and second paragraphs.
    I'm using the first paragraph somewhat like a lead for the rest of the reception. I've already reworded the first paragraph's mention, so IMO it's fine. Also, what's your opinion on the removal of reviewer's names (per the conversation with Czar)? Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That should be a good first read through. Looks promising so far. The article seems to be in better condition then when it was first nominated, and I think it's almost there. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Thanks for the review! I've left a few replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Famous Hobo: I've collapsed the issues that I've fixed, if you believe they're not solved, feel free to remove them from the template. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, good work so far. Here's another batch of comments.

  • The box art has alt text, but the three other images also need alt text.
Added some alt text, no idea how to check if it works though.
  • The reception section has some issues in regards to the listed websites. For example, Post Arcade links to The Financial Post, which folded nearly 20 years ago. Instead, you should link it to the National Post, like you do later in the reception section. Also, decide whether to use GameCentral or Metro, as Game Central redirects to Metro, and you interchange the publications throughout the reception section. Finally there is some overlinking of the websites (Destructoid and PC Gamer from what I saw). While your at it, Minecraft should also be delinked, as this was linked in the gameplay section.
    Is it better now?
  • The external links seem to be freaking out, but from I've noticed, you've archived all the sources, so good for you.
Seems like that tool doesn't like, which is what all of those blue highlighted links were.
  • As for whether the prose in the reception section is good, honestly, this has always been difficult for me to decide. Before Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward was promoted, IDV and I had to completely rewrite the reception section twice, because neither of us were that good at it. If you want an expert review on the reception section, I recommend asking Czar to take a look at it again, or politely invite PresN to take a look at it. As for what I think, honestly I think it does its job. It discusses what reviewers liked and disliked, and I felt it was a smooth read. Also, I could go either way when it comes to including reviewer names, but I guess if I had to choose, I prefer at least having the reviewers last name mentioned. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    I agree in that the reception does the job well, and I'd rather leave it as is with the occasional last name and so-on because that's what I'm used to writing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Famous Hobo: Cheers for the new points. I've left replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Alright, we're getting really close, just a few more things I need to bring up.

  • This is my fault since I edited this bit, but I just noticed the definition of nuclear fallout doesn't accurately describe the Fallout setting. Perhaps instead include nuclear war? It doesn't roll off the tongue as well, but the change should be made.
  • Regarding the screenshot, the Geek article has some good ones, but none of them show the HUD, which a vital aspect of the game. One of my friends owns Far Harbor, and I can get a better lit screenshot if you'd like showing the HUD, but at this point, I don't think the screenshot as is will be an issue.
I don't mind changing the screenshot, but I believe the current one portrays the content well enough. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A really small nitpick, but in the external links section, their is no Far Harbor website. It simply links to the Fallout 4 website. Perhaps change it to Official Fallout 4 website.
  • I noticed the Vice article on the talk page. Were you going to use that at some point? By the looks of it, it seems to be just a review, and the reception section is already solid. Unless it brings up any new points, I don't think you need to include it.
Yeah, I normally just throw sites on there that I think I might get around to using, but I didn't need it. I've removed it from the page.

Once those points are addressed, I'll support. BTW, you can check alt text with the handy dandy altviewer. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Cheers for the analysis, I've fixed up all the issues and left replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll stop pestering you about the screenshot, as it does it's job. Since all of my comments have been addressed, I'll Support. Good job, and I hope everything goes well from here on out. I know the struggle of working on an FAC. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Kalākaua coinage[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC), Maile66 (talk)

This article is about... four of five of Hawaii's official coins, so liked for their beauty they were incorporated into spoons, cuff links and the like, but which caused a monetary crisis when issued to refill Hawaii's treasury. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Tube Alloys[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Tube Alloys, the British atomic bomb project during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:George_Paget_Thomson.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Appleton.jpg
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_Anderson,_1st_Viscount_Waverley_1947.jpg: not seeing that that specific photo is under that license?
    It says that all the photographs are all under CC-BY-SA 4.0 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, where are you seeing that? This page doesn't give a license for that image, whereas this one (or the Google Translate version thereof) says that only 38% of all digitized images have that license. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Hmmm. It appears that the image is by Yousuf Karsh, and was taken in 1943. I don't know if/when copyrights expire in Canada; in Australia it would be expired. I'll assume that copyrights do not expire in Canada, and have removed the image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • File:NRX_Pile_Building_and_ZEEP_Building-_Cooling_Tanks_1945.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Niels_Bohr_1935.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    Somewhere between 1945 and 1961. I have a book from 1961; but Google n-grams says I should be looking for one published in 1957. How early do we need? In Australia the de jure answer would be 1946, the year the image was deposited in the archive; this may be the case in Canada too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    For the first one, we actually only need a pre-1978 publication; PD-Canada allows for copyright expiration for creation-only pre-1946 for photos. The second is trickier - what US PD tag should be applied? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Does that apply to Crown copyright? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    Damn. I wanted to have a picture of Niels Bohr. This one is PD having been created in 1935, but I'm not sure what the position is in the uS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, looks great. --John (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed at A Class and was impressed by the piece then. A further reading, with the FA criteria in mind, confirms that for me this fulfils the FA requirements. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (subject to resolution of the remaining issues with the images). I have read Ronald W Clark's book and this article augments it well with what we have learnt since his book was published in 1961. A superb article, well done. Graham Beards (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Monnow Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Monnow Bridge. The bridge has some importance as the only fortified bridge of its type remaining in Great Britain. It also has some significance to Wikipedia as the symbol of Monmouth, the world's first Wikipedia town. KJP1 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hchc2009:[edit]

Comments from me below; the article's looking good, and great to see a fascinating bridge like this at FAC. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009, much appreciated. Article's been greatly improved by the process, and through your input. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "some 500m above its confluence" - imperial equivalent needed
  • Green tickY Done, and with the others, I think. Apologies, I overlooked this when Nev1 told me at PR that I needed conversions. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Carries pedestrian traffic" (infobox) - capitalisation of pedestrian?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Begun, according to tradition, in 1272" - what sort of tradition? (local, oral, historical?)
  • Green tickY Done. With "local". Rowlands does mention the Victorian tradition which appears to have started it. Would "historical" be better?
  • "the borough was entitled to raise through Royal charter." - capitalisation of royal charter
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The archaeologist Martin Cook, in his 1998 volume Medieval Bridges, notes the significance of the date 1270" - I found it a bit odd to name the books the quotes were coming from in the main text; if a work was particularly important, perhaps, but I couldn't see why this (and similar examples) couldn't just read "The archaeologist Martin Cook notes the significance of the date 1270..." - it would be cleaner.
  • Green tickY Done. And elsewhere, I hope. I've left it in where it seems more integral to the text, e.g. Heath below. Could remove if thought better?
  • "The Monmouth antiquarian Charles Heath, writing in his Historical and descriptive accounts of the ancient and present state of the town of Monmouth published in 1804, recorded that the bridge's "foundation is so ancient that neither history or tradition afford any light respecting the date of its erection."[5] Heath drew directly from the earlier guide to The Antiquities of England and Wales written by Francis Grose and published in 1773" - if I understand this correctly, is the key point that neither Charles Hearth nor Francis Grose used the 1272 date?
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, by re-ordering. I've put Heath/Grose earlier, to emphasise their not using "1272" and followed with Cook. Better?
  • "An early account in the Flores Historiarum by Roger of Wendover may suggest that the wooden bridge" - I paused over the "may suggest"; I couldn't quite work out what the "may" was trying to say here.
  • Not done, yet. I think it is trying to say that even this, nearly contemporaneous, account is insufficiently clear to be certain Roger W is describing the precursor to the Monnow Bridge. Rowlands, with typical caution, says "..the text is not clear enough to refer to any bridge unequivocally."
  • "was added at the end of the thirteenth or start of the 14th centuries, some thirty years after the bridge itself was built." - worth being consistent on whether the article prefers "thirteenth" or "13th". Presumably the "thirty years" only works if you accept the "tradition" of the 1272 date? [NB: Cadw say "25 years after" the bridge on their website]
  • Green tickY Done. In terms of the 13th century correction. Does "twenty-five to thirty" give the necessary elasticity?
  • "A murage was a medieval tax, granted specifically to allow for the raising of funds to construct, or repair, town defences." - typically, walls rather than "defences" - you couldn't spend it on a castle, for example.
  • Green tickY Done. Replaced "defences" with "walls".
  • "including the construction of the gate-tower" - I'm assuming this is the same as the "gatehouse" mentioned previously? If so, worth using the same term
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "By 1315, this work was still incomplete or required repair" - as written, the paragraph implies that the "work" is the work on the gatehouse, as opposed to the wider walls etc., but I'm not sure that's necessarily correct?
  • Green tickY Done, I hope. Rowlands isn't specific as to what work was still to be done. I've removed the "this" to make it less bridge-specific.
  • "the circuit of walls/urban defences encircling Monmouth" - felt an ugly phrasing
  • Green tickY Done. Yes an "encircling circuit" didn't really flow. Have ditched "circuit" and made it read "defensive walls, keeping the link. OK?
  • "Leland's map shows walls only on the northern side of the town" - you haven't introduced Leland yet?
  • Green tickY Done. Double c*ck-up here. No introduction to Speed, and it's his map, not Leland's. Apologies.
  • "Kissack contends that the gate house was ineffective in defensive terms..." - the flow of this paragraph didn't quite work for me. We start with Kissack, a modern historian; we go back to 1902, and note it was used to raise tolls. We then say "Later historians dispute this," - but don't say who (presumably not Kissack). And we then go back to tolls again.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope. I agree it wasn't clear and I've done a re-write and re-ordering. This starts with the tolls, and then follows with a, chronologically-ordered, run through the "defence versus revenue-collection" debate. I've also cited Soulsby/Rowlands for the latter, dual-purpose, view. Does this work? KJP1 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "from paying tolls on fair days" - could we link fair days?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The historian William Coxe in his two volume guide, An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire, published in 1801, incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that; "It commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh." - this sentence didn't fit well here for me; it wasn't telling us much, other than that Coxe was incorrect (and again, didn't accept the 1272 date!)
  • Green tickY Done. Agreed; it didn't flow/fit there. Have moved it up to the paragraph which discusses 1272, where I think it's more at home.
  • "Before 1830, the gatehouse was owned by Monmouth Corporation" - I don't think we've explained when the corporation first acquires it?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "transferred to the Duke of Beaufort as part of a property exchange" - could this link to the specific Duke of Beaufort, rather than just the title?
  • Green tickY Done. The 6th.
  • "but Rowlands shows that the apertures are clearly visible" - first time you've mentioned Rowlands I think.
  • Green tickY Done. Have now introduced him earlier.
  • "Until their banning, in 1858" - repeats the beginning of the paragraph (I think it only needs to explain that it was banned once)
  • Green tickY Done. By removal of the duplication.
  • "it was decorated with flags and lights to commemorate the coming of age of John Maclean Rolls" - could we give the year here?
  • Green tickY Done. 1891.
  • "In the late 1920s the top portion was replaced with twin electric lamps. " - the top portion of what?
  • Green tickY Done. Sorry, unclear. The top portion of the original light placed on the gate.
  • "In the 20th century the growth of traffic using the road, with resulting accidents and congestion on what was a humpback bridge with poor visibility and narrow approach roads, led to many proposals to by-pass the bridge." - a long and slightly twisty sentence
  • Green tickY Done. Rather like the road onto the bridge. I've re-worded but I'll leave you to judge whether it's better.
  • "The damaging impact of traffic on ancient structures had long been recognised; in 1721 The Society of Antiquaries had paid ten shillings "for setting down two oak-posts to secure Waltham Cross from injury by carriages." - no doubt true, but it felt like a digression in this paragraph.
  • Green tickY Done. By removal. It was a bit of a digression, but was my only Fawcett reference, a book I recently found! As the first secretary of the Victorian Society, she deserves a mention. Shall have to find another use for her.
  • "The bridge and gate was formally recognised as an Ancient Monument in 1923" - would "protected" be a better verb?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The new A40, built in 1965/66" - elsewhere the article prefers the "1965-66" style
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Monnow Bridge and Gatehouse has been a popular subject for artists, particularly since the development of the Picturesque movement in the later 18th century." - does Grose really work as a citation here? He can't really be commenting on the post-1780s? ;)
  • Red XN Not Done. He sort of does, at least for the early period. He says, "As a picturesque object they (the bridge and gate) have long been noticed by the connoisseurs." Thus, he's an early adopter! What do you think?
  • I don't think that statement really supports the sentence as written - he's writing in 1773, so not exactly late 18th century and pre-Gilpin's popularisation of the topic, and he doesn't actually say that they've been painted by anyone (the phrase would also apply to anyone enjoying the view with the picturesque in mind, for example). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem. I'll either find another source, or re-word.
  • Green tickY Done - by re-wording and losing the Grose quote.
  • "The bridge is 34.80 metres (114.2 ft) in length" - very precise (down to the centimetre)... not sure it was necessary to be that specific here?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The room in the tower measures 36 feet long and 10 feet wide" - metric equivalent needed (NB: the article should be consistent in which it prefers)
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "quarried within 10 miles of Monmouth" - metric equivalent needed
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " the machine cut " - "machine-cut"?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "In 1996, the bridge was included on a list of potential World Heritage Bridges by the UNESCO advisory body, the International Council on Monuments and Sites. Such bridges must be of "outstanding universal value" as "a type which illustrates a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments." - a) not sure that it being including on a potential list is that valuable (?); secondly, "such bridges" implies it is a statement about this bridge, but I think it is really refering to successfully designated World Heritage Bridges (of which this isn't an example)?
  • Red XN I see what you mean, and I appreciate the survey dates from 1996, but I am inclined to think it does serve to illustrate the bridge's importance and notability. I don't know how UNESCO goes about listing World Heritage Sites, except that it's probably slowly, and with a great deal of lobbying involved. But the ICOMOS survey, in the Medieval Section, brackets Monnow Bridge with, among others, the Ponte Vecchio, the Pont d'Avignon, the Pont Valentré and the Charles Bridge. Not bad company, if you're a fortified bridge. Looking a bit further, here, [13], it would seem that none of these four have been listed in their own right, but the other three do get in as part of The Historic Centre of Florence, Avignon & Prague respectively. Maybe that's the issue for poor old Monnow Bridge. I'm very fond of Monmouth but no-one could argue it provides the architectural setting the three cities give. I have re-worded, however, to take on board your second comment. Hope this is ok? KJP1 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I still don't think the quotation "Such bridges must be of "outstanding universal value" as "a type which illustrates a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments."" is helping here. The fact that Monnow Bridge was not made a World Heritage Bridge after 1996 means that we are really are saying that it was not of "outstanding universal value" etc. etc., which seems a strange thing to highlight. I think it would be better to note that the organisation considered the listed potential bridges to be "important types or technological turning points", which would be a more positive statement. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done - re-worded as suggested. I do think the very fact that it was up for consideration merits a mention. And see below.
  • "Another, roughly contemporaneous, is the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France, which has been described as "the finest specimen of a medieval fortified bridge in the world." - I wasn't sure what the quote was telling us about this bridge...
  • Green tickY Done - sort of! I agree, but I'd be reluctant to lose it entirely, as it's a single-quote source. And the continental examples do provide context. Have tried to trim. See what you think? KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm still not convinced that we need to say that the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France, is "the finest specimen in the world." It doesn't tell us anything about Monnow Bridge - other than, I presume that it isn't the finest specimen in the world! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia would be very short of articles if we only wrote about "the finest" of anything! I absolutely agree that the implication of the source is that the Monnow Bridge isn't the best of its type in the world. But it is a very good example, and the only one of its type left in Britain. Having the context of the best of the type in the world seems to me to be helpful.
  • But what does the statement that "the Pont Valentre in France is the finest medieval fortified bridge in the world" tell us about the Monnow Bridge in Wales? There are always going to be the finest examples of anything (statues, bridges, castles etc.) If it was part of a comparison, it would make sense, but I can't see what it is adding to this article as a standalone fact. Why not just just say "European examples include the Frias Bridge, near Burgos, Spain and the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Edit Conflicting - Here's my further thought - Thinking a bit more, perhaps an analogous case from Wikipedia would be the J. Mordaunt Crook quote I used at the end of William Burges. Crook said that Burges's achievements; "place him as Pugin's only "rival as the greatest art-architect of the Gothic Revival." It's pretty clear that Crook actually thinks Pugin was the greater architect, and most other modern critics would probably agree, but I don't think that detracts from the scale of Burges's own achievement.
  • It tells us that there is a better example of a fortified bridge. Isn't that useful context?
  • OK - quote's gone.
  • "The rarity of Monnow Bridge and Gate is reflected in its status as a potential World Heritage site,[83] a Scheduled Monument[90] and a Grade I listed building" - I thought this was mixing up three things; scheduled monument status (pretty common in the UK); Grade I listed - rather less common; "potential WH site" - unclear how significant this is, until it is actually granted such status (and this was 20 years ago, so presumably it didn't make the cut?)
  • See comment above re. ICOMOS survey.
  • File:Monmouth Monnow Bridge 1930 from Town Side showing three cottages no longer there.jpg - to be a valid UK anonymous tag, the evidence of the due diligence checks carried out needs to be added to the file description (part of UK law if anonymous work status is being claimed)
  • Green tickY Done. Utterly clueless on copyright, as others could testify. Have changed image to one that's fine, I hope.
  • The replacement, File:Monnow Bridge (2).jpg, is justified under a life + 70 claim, which can't really work for an anonymous ~1900 work (we don't know that the photographer died before 1947); if anonymous and of this period, it need a valid UK anonymous tag, and evidence of the due diligence checks about the author etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • NB: The File:Monnow Bridge (3).jpg file is correctly licensed though, and would give a rare 19th photograph of the bridge. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Sold!
  • Sources - the capitalisation needs checking; I think the MOS prefers capitals in sources - e.g. " The itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, in nine volumes" should be "The Itinerary of..." Hchc2009 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Could the web page citations give the author? It would make it clearer where the information is coming from. e.g. "Monnow Bridge and Gate". Retrieved 2017-03-29." is actually a quote from Rowlands, M.L.J (1994). Monnow Bridge and Gate. Stroud: Alan Sutton. ISBN 0-7509-0415-1.
  • Green tickY Done. I hope I haven't missed any.
  • At least one of the web page citations needs a page number reference: "CBA Research Report No. 61". Retrieved 2017-01-28.", for example, is a 234 page long pdf! ;)
  • Green tickY Done. I know, I've just had to wade through it again to find the relevant page. I've done this one but will look to see if there are more.
  • I'm not sure the publisher on "Yale Center for British Art, Lec Maj. "The Monnow Bridge, Monmouthshire". Retrieved 2017-02-09." is right; the website at the bottom gives its identity as "Yale: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art", no mention of ""
  • Green tickY - Done, I think, with "Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection".
  • "The noted architectural watercolourist Samuel Prout painted the bridge in the late 18th or early 19th century in a study now held at the Yale Center for British Art in Connecticut." - the citation attached to this just gives the date as "before 1814".
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Hando, Fred (1964). "Monmouth Town Sketch Book". Newport: R.H.Johns Ltd. OCLC 30295655. is formatted differently to the others (I think you're using Cite News as a template)
  • Green tickY Done. This dates from when I cited the South Wales Argus as an article, prior to having the book.
  • "Scheduled Monument - Full Report - HeritageBill Cadw Assets - Reports". 1974-07-24. Retrieved 2017-03-11." - definitely published by Cadw, not, which is part of the name of their url.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " Henry Gastineau created a much reproduced image in 1819." - the citation here just says (unless I've missed something) "Monnow Bridge circa 1819. Engraving after a drawing by Henry Gastineau", without anything about being "much reproduced".
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Leland 1770, p. unknown." - unknown in that there weren't page numbers in the volume, or unknown in that we don't know which page it was on? I wasn't sure how to interpret this. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Red XN Query - It's unknown, as in I don't know it. Worldcat tells me Charles Heath is actually unnumbered, so I used that for Heath. I just don't know what the numbering is for Leland, or indeed if he has numbering. Advice? KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we know which editor added the reference in? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Guilty as charged, I'm afraid. It can be found on line but not with any numbering. I'll go and have a look where I got it. In an earlier version, I had it in as a web reference, not cited as a book. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done. Changed the Leland to the 1906 edition, which gives a page number of 46.
Really appreciate the time taken, and the detailed comments. Will work through today. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009, I think the Leland page number completes the issues raised, but do let me know if I've missed anything. Many thanks for the very detailed review. Greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Chiswick Chap[edit]

The article is showing signs of polish since the GAN, and I don't have much to add now.

  • "having previously referenced the bridge in her wider study, The Fortifications of Monmouth published in 1896": if this minor aside is needed at all, it would be better as a sentence ("MEB-O mentioned the bridge ... in 1896, and wrote the first history ..."), or it could be a footnote.
  • Green tickY Done. Minor aside!! Do you know how long and hard I had to search for that bloody pamphlet! [Deep breath]. You're quite right and it's now a footnote.
  • "walls/urban defences" is an ugly construction. Why not just say "walls" or "town walls".
  • Green tickY Done. It was and it's now gone.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • There's a disconnect between the Ove Arup study "not progressed" and the sudden arrival of a new bridge in the next sentence and only 5 years later (if you'll forgive the zeugma).
  • You're absolutely right - I just need to work something up.
  • Green tickY - Done, now, I hope. Added a little text to fill the jarring gap. Hope it fits the bill, and the gap? KJP1 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, perfectly.
  • Does the mosaic pillar have any relevance to the article?
  • Red XN It's tangential, I agree. You'll recall I took out the earlier photo which showed the plinth and replaced it with a better view of the bridge as per your suggestion. Which was absolutely the right call. But I'd regret losing it entirely, as I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If you have a look on the article Talkpage, you can see it, with the specific tile depicting the bridge. Unfortunately, accompanied by graffiti. I could remove, however. What do you think?
Well, what does it add? That the council think the bridge a distinctive feature of their town?
  • Green tickY Done - plinth gone.
  • "tariffs could be levied" ... "five fat hogs": gives the impression that a load of 1..4 fat hogs would escape the tariff, surely an easily-exploitable loophole. I guess that Kissack's details are examples of loads on which tariffs had been levied.
  • Or five skinny hogs? In a lean year? The list is unbelievably exhaustive; "each hundred cat or squirrel skins" - did someone count them all?
I mean simply that we need to say something like "had been" rather than implying as it does now "were only permitted to be levied on", which can't possibly be right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done - message received, I think.
  • Support, through GA and to here, careful work has led to a fine article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, very grateful for these, and for the earlier GA comments. Will work through them today. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Very much appreciate your support, here and for the GAR. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- I've fixed a few ref formatting inconsistencies, but wonder about the AmEng date format used in quite a number of them; i.e, 2017/03/27. I appreciate that consistency is key here, but strictly speaking, a BrEng article should use BrEng formatting.
  • Red XN A bit out of my depth here, formatting being one of my lesser strengths. Very happy to follow the consensus view? KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • May be a source reviewer could help; Nikkimaria, what are the rules around this? CassiantoTalk 07:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If the citation style being used recommends a specific date format, that should be used; otherwise it should match what is used in the article body. And for article body, MOS:DATETIES applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be fair to assume that most will know what a "double decker bus" (20th–21th centuries) and "leased" (15th–19th centuries) are? If so, I think the links can be dropped.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • There is a mix of commas and non commas in sentences similar to the following: "In 1796, the bridge..." compared to "In 1796 the bridge..." etc..
  • - Will work on these.
  • The first para of "Architecture and appreciation" section ends with three refs to ref 11. Would one suffice? CassiantoTalk 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done.
Very grateful for your amendments and for your support. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pepper[edit]

Haven't gotten around to going through the whole article yet, but I plan to (at least for a grammatical once-over). However, I am already sensing a general trend with the writing style that I think should be improved upon for a FAC. Many of the sentences have an unnecessarily complex structure, and that makes reading difficult and comprehension a bit challenging.

Take this for example: Begun, according to local tradition, in 1272, the stone bridge replaced a 12th-century Norman timber bridge. From its construction, it played a significant, if ineffectual, role in the defence of Monmouth, in the medieval era, in the English Civil War and during the Chartist uprising. 8 commas in 2 sentences! I have a few problems with this set of sentences, such as the choppiness that comes with too many commas and the ambiguous use of begun (what begun? the construction? the tolling? if it was only the construction that began in 1272, it surely didn't replace the Norman timber bridge until a few years later). A potential rewording could look like "According the local tradition, construction of the Monnow Bridge began in 1272 to replace a 12th-century Norman timber bridge. Through the medieval era, the English Civil War, and the Chartist uprising, the bridge was significant in its role of defending Monmouth."

Another example: The historian William Coxe, in his two volume guide, An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire, published in 1801, incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that; "It commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh." Is it necessary to break up the meaning of the sentence with so much information about the guide which one could find in §Sources if needed? (The title is also incorrectly written here.) I would say "The historian William Coxe incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that "it commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh."

I'll give a more thorough read-through as time permits (hopefully in the next few days) and will make a few minor grammatical changes myself for you to review. Let me know if you have questions! "Pepper" @ 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pepper - any and all suggestions gratefuly received. Anything that improves accessibility will be great. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, got around to it sooner than I thought. Overall, I think the content of the article is exceptional, though I still feel like sentences could be simplified and the number of grammatical issues lends me to not support until they are fixed. I started writing out all of the grammatical things I came across below, then realized there would be many of them. Would you like me to continue making suggestions on grammatical suggestions for your review, or shall I go ahead and make them myself? See examples just below:
Pepper - Many thanks for these. I'll go through and amend in line with your suggestions. Re. the above, I'm fine if you'd prefer to just go ahead and make them. I appreciate that can be less time-consuming than detailing them in the review. More generally, I don't think your comments heavy-handed, on the contrary, they will certainly help to improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a specific reason why you aren't referring to it as the Monnow Bridge? This seems to be the most common way to refer to bridges.
  • I think this is just the way people generally refer to the bridge. If you look at Bagnall-Oakeley, its first historian, and Rowlands, its latest, neither calls it The Monnow Bridge. I suppose it's like Tower Bridge, which again isn't described with the definite article.
  • In the first sentence, wouldn't it be more important to have the bridge's Welsh name rather than the Welsh name of the river it crosses?
  • Green tickY Done. It's in the infobox, but I've added it to the lead.
  • "Such bridge towers were common across Europe from medieval times but many were destroyed" - comma before but
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Beginning of the second paragraph could be reworded as I suggested above. If you'd prefer to keep it the way it is, remove the comma after Monmouth and add one after War.
  • Green tickY - Done, almost. The only bit I've kept is "ineffectual", as I think that leads into the debate about how effective/important is was as part of Monmouth's defences.
  • "It also served as a gaol, a munitions store, a lodge, an advertising hoarding, a focus for celebrations and" - comma before and to match the style of the rest of article
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "In the 20th century, it suffered increasing damage as higher volumes of traffic, and the use of ever-larger vehicles, led to a number of serious accidents." - don't need commas in a list of two items, so get rid of the last two commas in that sentence
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The existing bridge was completed in the late 13th century, traditionally in 1272 though this date has no supporting documentary evidence." - reword to avoid run-on sentence, perhaps break it into two: The existing bridge was completed in the late 13th century. It was traditionally thought to have been finished in 1272, though this date has no supporting documentary evidence.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Second sentence of 13th–14th centuries as recommended above - either way be sure to fix "An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire" to the correct title "An Historical Tour in Monmouthshire"
  • Green tickY Done - Hchc2009 also thought the full titles unhelpful, so I've taken them out, except where they seemed critical.
  • Similar for other books - the article is about the bridge, not the books. I don't think it's relevant that "Heath drew directly from the earlier guide to The Antiquities of England and Wales written by Francis Grose and published in 1773" though I appreciate that the history is complex and I wouldn't mind if you decide this is necessary to keep.
  • Kept, but slimmed down.
  • "However, this is unlikely as the gatehouse" - comma after unlikely
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " the wooden bridge, and the nearby Church of St Thomas the Martyr, were damaged" - don't need commas in a list of two items, remove both
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The site of the battle is a matter of debate, however, as is the specific bridge involved; the local historian Keith Kissack" - could simplify to: However, both the site of the battle and the specific bridge involved are under debate. The local historian Keith Kissack....
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "In 1297 Edward I provided a murage grant in favour of Monmouth, in response to a request from his nephew Henry of Lancaster." Commas! In 1297, Edward I provided a murage grant in favour of Monmouth in response to a request from his nephew, Henry of Lancaster.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Do we need to describe what a murage is if it's linked?
  • Red XN - Personally, I think the one-liner helps, but happy to remove if others disagree.

Didn't really want to write out any more comma/sentence structure things, below are remaining thoughts

  • First sentence in 15th–19th centuries could be split into two, currently is a run-on
  • Green tickY Done. By splitting.
  • "In 1839, the gatehouse was garrisoned during the Newport Rising, the authorities fearing a Chartist attack which did not materialise." - not sure what this sentence is saying due to grammar, perhaps reword
  • Green tickY Done. Hope the re-wording makes it clearer.
  • "a double-decker bus attempted to cross the bridge into Monmouth, caused very significant damage" - damage to the bus or the bridge (or both)?
  • Green tickY Done. Both, I'd imagine. But I clarified as I think we're concerned about the damage to the bridge.
  • "the gatehouse was formally re-opened, on a weekly basis, in 2014." - does this mean the bridge is only open once a week? Clarify.
  • Green tickY Done - it is indeed only open once a week.
  • "In 1795 J. M. W. Turner sketched the bridge and gatehouse during one his annual Summer sketching tours." - missing word, comma after 1795, summer need not be capitalized
  • Green tickY Done.
  • The gatehouse stands 11.00 metres (36.09 ft) high. - specify if above the bridge deck or above water level or above ___.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Are other examples of bridge towers necessary at the end of Architecture and appreciation? Perhaps as see also links - I find the discussion of bridge towers in general to be off topic.
  • Personally, I think giving a couple of other examples of the type gives a helpful context. There aren't any others in the UK, apart from Warkworth, and Frias and Pont Valentré are closer in design appearance to Monnow Bridge. But others may take a different view, and I'm fine to remove if they do.

Sorry for the heavy-handed review, but the grammar could use some work and is not currently FA-worthy. Regards, "Pepper" @ 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I'll go through to see I've removed all the unnecessary titles, and to do a further check on commas and general accessibility. If you had time to do so as well, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Working through it - came across a few more things:
  • Kissack describes the engagement as "the most resolute Royalist attack made (on) Monmouth" which saw eight of Kyrle's opponents killed and five captured." - something going on with the quotes, not sure what's a direct quote and what's not.
  • Green tickY Done.One set of quotes too many.
  • "bequeathed a sum of about £120, the rent from his lands and houses" - rent for how long? yearly?
  • Green tickY Done. "annually.
  • "The bridge was also used as a focus for significant local and national celebrations; in 1891, it was decorated with flags and lights to commemorate the coming of age of John Maclean Rolls, eldest son of Monmouthshire grandee Lord Llangattock; and as an unofficial advertising hoarding." - if you could reword this one for simplicity; breaking into multiple sentences is always a good way to go. I'm not sure if I understand the sentence enough to modify it without being sure that I'm not changing the meaning.
  • Green tickY Done by splitting.
  • I'll do a separate MOS:LQ once-over, it seems most of the quotes are currently incorrect. "Pepper" @ 17:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. Let me know what I need to do as a consequence.
  • Green tickY In an effort to save you a job, I've had a go myself. Hope I haven't missed any/many?
  • At the beginning of 20th–21st centuries, you say the conservation program went until 1902, but the example you give as the end of the conservation work ended in 1897. Clarify on these dates to make it match.
  • Green tickY Done. Internal works continued until 1902. Also moved the paragraph re. lights to improve chronology.
  • "undertook a feasibility study for a bridge further along from the Monnow bridge" = along in which direction? "Pepper" @ 03:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done. "downstream".
  • "The bridge is constructed of seven types of stone, predominantly Old Red Sandstone, quarried within 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) of Monmouth." - was all the stone quarried within 16km, or just the Old Red Sandstone? Grammatically clarify. "Pepper" @ 04:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done. "all" the stone.

Great, thanks for fixing that all. I fixed a few straggling MOS:LQ errors - it can be a tricky style requirement! Some last thoughts, and then I'll be happy to support:

  • I think you've made me more confused about "bequeathed a sum of about £120, the rent from his lands and houses" - are you saying that each year, the poor guy got paid £120 from the people living on his land and in his buildings, and then immediately turned over the money to the mayor so his people wouldn't have to pay the toll? (If so, sounds like he got ripped off.)
  • I've had another go. See if it works. You're right, except Jones was dead so maybe he cared less! I think what the source is saying is that, in his will, Jones left the revenues from his Bayliepitte rentals to the corporation in perpetuity, provided they give an exemption from tolls on fair days. It's a charitable bequest on behalf of his fellow citizens of Monmouth.
  • Ah yes, I suppose it would help if I knew what bequeathed meant. "Pepper" @ 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider changing the wording of "Until their banning in 1858, youths from both sides of the bridge would gather..." - I'm assuming it was the "occasions" that were banned and not the youths.
  • Green tickY - Done - by making clear it's the muntlings, not the youths, that were banned.

Really appreciate your input. It's tightened up the grammar and improved the clarity, to the great benefit of the article. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, you have a support from me, with a closing remark. I was taught that in technical writing, starting by clearly stating the conclusion is a good way to provide the reader with a "sneak preview" of the what they will be reading. In encyclopedia articles, that fairly easily translates into 'start with a definition and the most important aspects.' What, in your opinion, is the most important aspect of the bridge? It's uniqueness? Age? Artistic value? Whatever it is, I think that's what the first sentence should contain. (And conversely, given that you most likely didn't answer "how far upstream the bridge is from the confluence of the Wye and the Monnow", that info may not belong there.) All the best. "Pepper" @ 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed - for the review and for the support. I take your point about the hook, and will give this a bit more thought. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I took part in the peer review and was then already pleased with the article, and some minor changes made. Reading once more, just a few comments:

13th–14th centuries

  • First we have stone bridge, building + date and it's sources, then wooden bridge, then suddenly the tower. How about a paragraph Before the stone bridge (you'll find a better header), about the wooden bridge and perhaps why there was a bridge at the location?
  • This one requires a bit of thought. I'll come back to it.
  • Green tickY Done - I hope. I've flipped the order of the first two paragraphs so that they all run chronologically: wooden bridge, then stone bridge, then gatehouse. I didn't want to re-write too extensively, but I hope it meets the need.
  • I like the order. Perhaps give the beginning an extra header, because 13th century doesn't match the timber dating ;)
  • Could the 1610 map go closer to what it depicts, - not the wooden bridge, but where it's mentioned a para later?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "As well as providing some defence ..." takes a long time until we know the subject of the sentence, - simpler? Especially since the defence function is questioned by some historians.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, by simplifying.

15th ...

  • "Since then, the structure has remained essentially unchanged, through regular maintenance and repair." I am not sure that I understand "through" here.
  • Green tickY Done. Hope it's clearer.

20th ...

  • "the cruciform arrow slit on the front, left, of the gatehouse was restored to make it symmetrical", again not sure how to understand, this time the "left".
  • Green tickY Done. Again, I hope it's clearer.

Architecture ...

  • "having a flat, "Caernarvon", head." - I may be wrong but think quotation marks AND commas are too much, just one might do.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • 'and "illustrate(.) a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments."' - (.) looks irritating (to me). How about 'and illustrate "a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments.' or 'and show/demonstrate "a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments.'?
  • Green tickY Done. Gone with the first.
  • "the other example being" - as there are only these two, how about "the other being"?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Such bridge towers were common across Europe and, to a lesser extent, in Great Britain, from medieval times." - what's the function of the comma before "medieval"?
  • Green tickY Done by removal.


  • I was taught to write "J. S. Bach", so believe it should be "Barley, M. W." etc.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, assuming I got your meaning.
  • I was taught to have isbn numbers all long or all short.
  • Green tickY Done, as short version, again, if I got your meaning.

That's it from me, good luck! A great topic, served well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Gerda - your comments are much appreciated, here and at the Peer Review. I'll address these as soon as I can. One quick query - long or short isbns. Are these with or without hyphens? KJP1 (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Now addressed, I hope, with the exception of the first, which requires a bit of thought. I'll get back to that this evening. I've gone with short isbns, assuming I was correct as to your meaning. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Pleased, thank you! I should have been clearer about short vs. long isbn, - I didn't mean with or without hyphen, but ten digits or 13. I do without hyphens when in a rush, but with hyphens is easier to read. It's nothing I am particularly picky about, but have seen others requesting uniform style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem - I'll go through and make them uniform, with hyphens. But it'll have to wait until this evening! KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Done. Sorry, slight delay, but now all back in long form, with hyphens. KJP1 (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I think we're done, but let me know if I've missed something. Again, many thanks for your input here, and at peer review. It's much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my pleasure! Just one comment above, but however you solve that, it has my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Leaning support, just a few things.

  • "Much of the medieval development of the town of Monmouth was funded by the taxes and tolls the borough was entitled to raise through Royal Charter." This does not appear to be mentioned or cited in the body.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, by the addition of a sentence at the end of the 4th paragraph of the 13th-14th centuries section.
  • "However, this is unlikely, as the gatehouse did not come into the possession of the Somersets until the 19th century." I might add a "the duke's family," before "the Somersets"
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " "typical of the late thirteenth century and (.) developed from plain loops; the horizontal slits allowed an increased field of view from within." The parenthesised full stop is intended as an ellipsis or similar? Is this an ENGVAR thing?
  • Done. No, just a KJP1 error thing! Have re-worded to make it unnecessary.
  • "A depiction of the bridge in stained glass by Charles Eamer Kempe can be seen in the Memorial of the Boer War window in St Mary's Priory Church." I might add an "in Monmouth" to the end.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • You refer to "Monnow Bridge Gate" once. Is this just a variation on your usual terms? By the way, I'm not quite sure where the line between "Monnow Bridge" and "Monnow Gate" is, exactly, in the prose.
  • Green tickY Done. By replacing with "gate". I think it's a relic of earlier confusion with consistent terminology between Monnow Bridge, Monnow Bridge Gate, Monnow Bridge Gatehouse, Monnow Bridge Tower etc. etc. All of which really means one and the same thing, the bridge and the gatehouse upon it. Hope it's consistent now.
  • Do we know when the tolls stopped?
  • Comment - a very good point! I certainly didn't have to pay them, as a school boy, even when accompanied by five fat hogs. I shall see if Rowlands gives us an answer but I don't remember reading it.
Very interesting and I shall make a point of visiting it if I ever happen to be nearby.-Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, very glad you liked it; the bridge, and the town, are certainly worth a visit. Thanks very much indeed for your comments. All very helpful, and I hope I've addressed them satisfactorily. Let me know, if not. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

'Support very enjoyable. It sounds like it would be worth a visit just to see if school boys are still accompanied by five fat hogs. . .--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Image comments[edit]

generally it seems like every image is in the ideal section:

Images could use ALT text. As an aside, is "Monow" an acceptable alternative spelling? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Not in the 21st century, but was probably ok in 1818. Many thanks for the review - I shall look to pick these up tomorrow. I've left a note on your Talk page as I may need a little guidance. KJP1 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Jo-Jo is suggesting that for File:Old map of Monmouth, Wales.jpg and File:The Monow Bridge, Monmouth. (3375370).jpg you need to replace {{PD-old}} with {{PD-scan|PD-old}}. File:Monnow Bridge (3).jpg seems to have come from the Monmouth Museum, at least from the user name, so that could be added to the source. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009, many thanks. I'll look to do these tonight, along with addressing Harry's comments, and then see where we stand. I think it will only leave a source review, subject to any further comments John may have. KJP1 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Geni[edit]

  • The bridge is one of only two surviving fortified bridges in the United Kingdom

Strictly no. There are a number of WW2 pillboxes on bridges such as The one at Putney Bridge tube station.

©Geni (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting picture, and an interesting idea, but I don't think it is was what Historic England, Coflein, British Listed Buildings, had in mind when they, not me, described Monnow Bridge and Warkworth Bridge as the only two remaining fortified bridges in Britain. I think the pillbox is a later, supplementary addition to the Putney Bridge. Added to assist in its defence, certainly, but not, I think, making Putney Bridge a fortified bridge in the sense meant. KJP1 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from John[edit]

Oppose on prose. Needs a polish to meet the standard. We could start with the seven "however"s. --John (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

John - Thanks for your interest in the article. I wonder if you could give a little more detail regarding your concerns. I think the progress of the FAC to date shows I'm more than willing to amend the article in response to editors' comments, but you haven't given me very much to go on. I can, and shall, look at the uses of the word "however" but, beyond that, I'm not sure how to respond. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Removed some "however"s and moved others. KJP1 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
"However" isn't banned, but it's a widely mis/overused word and seven in a few thousand words is probably too many. There's a temptation to use it as a device for flow. I'm not sure what it is about "however" above the lots of other words that are misused but it's one that comes up fairly often at FAC. I'll have a look over the prose when I get chance. I meant to do it today but I'm nursing a hangover! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That would be very helpful and much appreciated. Quite happy to plead guilty to overuse, although I think part of the objection might relate to that old "rule" about beginning a sentence with the word - which is pretty obsolete these days. But a check over the prose would be of great assistance. Close textual analysis can be very beneficial for a hangover! KJP1 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
We're now down to two "howevers", I think, and one of those is a Rowlands quote, where he uses it to begin the sentence.

@John: - HJ Mitchell and I have addressed the seven "however"s. There's now only one and that's in a quote. I've also tried to smooth out some of the quotes, by removal or by merging. Could you let me know if you have any continuing concerns regarding the prose. If you do, it would be really helpful if you could detail them. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. The prose is much better now. I had a hack at it myself, and fixed the image formatting. I think the last outstanding problem is the date formatting; dates cannot be in YYYY-MM-DD form. John (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@John: - Many thanks for the comments and the corrections in the body of the article. I'll look at the date formatting this evening. Just to ensure I get it right; the dates should be in YY-MM-DD form? KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure! Thanks for putting together such an interesting and comprehensive article. I think it should be DD-MM-YYYY. Thee's a one-click tool that I usually use for this but it seems to be down at the moment. John (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem - I shall try to do it manually, tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again and glad you found the article of interest. It is a fascinating little bridge. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was a hell of a lot easier! Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I figured it out. --John (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
And appreciate the Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • It might be worth noting the previous ambiguity of Monmouth's status in Wales, or at least its proximity to the English border
  • Green tickY Done. Have added an introductory para. in the History section, and a mention in the lede.
  • You use a lot of quotes. Everybody has their own writing style, of course, but you make much heavier use of quotes than I do in my articles. It can make the prose a little bit choppy in places and I wonder if some of them might be better paraphrased.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope. You're right, I've been criticised previously for my over-use of quotes. I'm fond of using them but have sought to merge/reword/remove all those that didn't seem essential. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Further fortification took place in 1839 What sort of fortification? And being so late, were they decorative or was there actually a use for a fortified bridge in the mid-19th century?
  • Green tickY Done, by removal. My confusion - Coflein's referring to the activity at the time of the feared Chartist attack, which I mention in the next para.
  • From 1889 to 1902, an extensive programme of conservation was carried out on the bridge, directed by Monmouthshire County Council So have the council got it back now? Because three paragrpahs up they're handing it over to the Duke of Beaufort. Okay, I see they get it back a few paragraphs later, so why were they spearheading conservation of a building that wasn't theirs?
  • Green tickY Done, by adding a bit from Rowlands. Even after ceding the gate, MCC retained responsibility for the bridge and also, it appears, maintenance responsibility for both. The Duke obviously struck a good deal!
  • You have This period of conservation ended with and then Concluding the 1889–1902 renovations in the next sentence.
  • Green tickY Done, by rewording.
  • Damage to the bridge and gate through accidents continued I would merge that sentence into the previous paragraph or move the last sentence of that paragraph into this one to keep the road accidents together
  • Green tickY Done, by merging as per first suggestion.
  • funding of £1.3M was secured from where?
  • Green tickY Done, it was local authority funding.
  • three machicolations I had to click the link; could really do with an explanation in the text rather than relying on the link
  • Green tickY Done, at first mention.
  • Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley describes them as "a very interesting arrangement" What does this add to the reader's understanding? If Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley were a renowned expert her opinion might be worth quoting, but even then I just wouldn't bother for such a dull quote. It tells me nothing.
  • Green tickY Done, by removal.
  • "obstructed the portcullis had they been present" See what I mean about quotes? You don't need a direct quote there; because they would have obstructed the portcullis would do fine, and is that bit less wordy and easier to read.
  • Green tickY Done.

I'd suggest trying to work some of the quotes into the prose proper and I made a few edits which had the happy side effect of removing the last remaining "however" that's not part of a quote. If John has concerns beyond that, he'll have to elaborate and I'll see what I can do (I'm watching this page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Harry - many thanks indeed for the comments. Unfortunately, things got in the way last night, but I shall get to them in the next day or so. I get the point re. the quotes. I'm very fond of them, but this isn't the first time I've been accused of over-use! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and now actioned. Sorry for the slight delay - real life intrusions. I hope the amendments meet the need. I'll now try and action the image copyright suggestions made above and ping John to see if he has any further issues with the prose. That will, I think, address all outstanding comments, although a sources review is still needed. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am taking a short break from putting Russell family-related articles through the FAC process to put forth something different. This article is about an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. It is the 14th episode of the first season and was first broadcast by UPN on May 8, 1995. In this episode, a Vidiian scientist Sulan (Brian Markinson) separates B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson) into a full-blooded Klingon and a full-blooded human in order to find a cure for a disease. The Voyager crew rescues Torres and restores her, while she attempts to reconcile with her identity as a half-human half-Klingon. It was developed as a character study to further explore Torres' internal struggle with her identity. Dawson was originally resistant to the episode, but later identified it as one of her favorite performances. It has also been the subject of racial criticism and study. The episode's final sequence garnered negative reviews from critics and fans for the lack of empathy shown to Torres by the rest of Voyager's crew.

I very much enjoyed working on this article, as it was one of my favorite episodes in the pre-season 4/pre-Seven of Nine parts of the series. I looked to other FAs on television episode, and incorporated my own experiences with my successful FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" while writing and revising this article. I was also partially inspired by the successful FAC for "Yesterday's Enterprise" to pursue this nomination. I believe that it satisfies all of the FA criteria. I look forward to hearing your feedback and growing as a writer and a Wikipedia contributor. Thank you in advance!

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Clearly some great work has gone on here, so well done. Just a few points:

  • "Biller wrote the teleplay which was directed by Winrich Kolbe" - would a comma help to improve this brief sentence? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "after they are stranded in the Delta Quadrant far from the rest of the Federation." - again, I think a comma would be a good idea after "Quadrant". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "In this episode, a Vidiian scientist Sulan (Brian Markinson) separates B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson) into a full-blooded Klingon and a full-blooded human in order to find a cure for a disease. The Voyager crew rescues Torres and restores her, while she attempts to reconcile with her identity as a half-human half-Klingon". I think that some reorganisation would help here. Mention that Torres is mixed-species before specifying that she has been divided into two; that makes I far easier for folks to understand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "deepened her understanding of her character and improved her acting abilities." - "her... her... her" is a bit repetitive. Maybe use some synonyms? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "a drop from the previous week" - a drop from "the episode broadcast the previous week" perhaps? Something is needed here just to make it a bit clearer. Many non-U.S. will not be familiar with Nielsen ratings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "cast and crew and television critics" - "cast, crew, and television critics"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "a deadly disease afflicting his race." - "afflicting his species"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Commander Chakotay (Robert Beltran), Lieutenant Commander Tuvok (Tim Russ), and Ensign Harry Kim (Garrett Wang), who had formed a search party to locate the missing crew members, are captured by Vidiians and forced to dig tunnels." This could do with some rewording. "Commander Chakotay (Robert Beltran), Lieutenant Commander Tuvok (Tim Russ), and Ensign Harry Kim (Garrett Wang), form a search party to locate the missing crew members but are captured by Vidiians and forced to dig tunnels."? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "for being a part of uncovering a cure. " - "for her role in developing a cure"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "She tries to use her sexuality to have the scientist release her, " - "She tries to seduce the scientist and thus make an escape"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Voyager can transport them to the ship" - add a link to Transporter (Star Trek). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly, when mentioning "shields", include a link to Shields (Star Trek). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "where Klingon Torres dies what she feels is an honorable death." - the wording here is a little clumsy, I would reword it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "He explains Torres must be restored " - "He explains that Torres must be restored". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "dealing with the conflict within herself" - "dealing with her inner conflict"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the episode's first draft aliens, using a machine, had separated Torres into human and Klingon parts as part of an experiment attempting to achieve purity within a species." - comma needed between "draft" and "aliens". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "in which Data (Brent Spiner) would" - specify that Data is from TNG. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was the fourth episode of the series Kolbe directed" - this could be read as meaning that Kolbe directed the whole series, so I would reword this to something like "It was the fourth episode of the series to be directed by Kolbe". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help so far! I apologize if I am interrupting in the middle of a review, but I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed your comments. I look forward to hearing further from you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Aoba47; if possible, could you strike-out those comments of mine which you have dealt with, so that I know where we stand? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Will do, thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Nana Visitor, who plays Kira Nerys in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" - "played", rather than "plays", given that we are discussing events in the 1990s. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "her to understand her character well enough to play her" - again, a few too many instances of "her" in quick succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ""Faces" was first broadcast on May 8, 1995, on UPN at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time." Probably worth specifying that this was in the United States. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The episode was first released for home media use on VHS in the United Kingdom in 1995 as part of a two-episode collection with "Cathexis".[29] The episode was first released on DVD as part of the first season release on February 24, 2004, in the United States.[30] This was followed by a release in the United Kingdom in 1996,[31] which was subsequently re-released in the following year.[32] " Something is wrong with the chronology and dates here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The episode was positively received by the cast and crew, for its representation of Torres' internal conflict over her half-human half-Klingon identity. " - the comma here does not work. Instead I would put one after "half-human". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "to deal with her internal struggles with identity" - repetition of "with"; perhaps "internal identity struggles". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic work, Aoba. I'd like to see the above issues dealt with but there is noting here that I feel prevents this article from being appointed as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help! I have struck out the comments that I have addressed. I looking forward to working with you further in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from adamstom97[edit]

A few notes:

  • The Nielsen rating line in the lead has an extra '"' in it.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "In the episode's first draft aliens, using" reads oddly to me. I feel something more like "In the episode's first draft, aliens used" would be better.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't have a full listing of the series regular cast anywhere, which I suppose is just being left to the main series/season articles. The only reason I mention it is that as someone who is unfamiliar with the show, the way some of the other cast members and their characters are discussed throughout the article was a bit confusing.
  • Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean, and I would be more than happy to hear suggestions on how to better convey the information regarding the regular cast. I could add in a separate section following the "Plot" section about the cast. I was primarily basing this article around other FAs on Star Trek episodes, such as "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Space Seed", and "The Man Trap". Aoba47 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this isn't something that a lot of episode articles seem to include, but I have found it helpful in the ones that I have done. As a possible example, I listed the main cast in the casting section and lead of The Dirty Half Dozen, which is a GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Adamstom.97: Thank you for your response. After giving the idea further thought, I am left a little uncertain about the value of listing the main cast in this particular case. I think it is beneficial for The Dirty Half Dozen and I really like the way that you have done it there. However, this episode is focused in on a select amount of characters from the show, with specific attention paid to B'Elanna Torres. Several major characters such as Kathryn Janeway and Neelix have relatively minor roles. My only concern would be listing a lot of cast members and characters' names in the lead and the "Casting and filming" section, and only a handful of them really having a major impact in the actual episode (since for all intensive purposes, it was conceived as more a character study). I hope this makes sense, and I hope that I do not come across as rude as I do greatly appreciate your feedback and suggestion. I will have to think about it further if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I completely understand. Perhaps you would consider just stating the actor and character together when introducing them in the prose throughout the article similarly to how you do so in the plot section? For instance, you have "Commander Chakotay (Robert Beltran)" in the plot section, and then the next mention of him is not until the casting and filming section where I had basically forgotten this since the article is mostly focused on Dawson and Torres. Would it be beneficial to start that sentence in the casting and filming section with "Robert Beltran, portraying series regular Commander Chakotay, said he felt..." and so on, just to give the readers a bit of help once they are into reading all the production info? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That makes perfect sense to me. I will revise this later today after I am done with work if that is okay. Thank you again for your input! Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Adamstom.97: I have revised the "Production" section to better introduce the actors, and I believe that I have revised all of them. Aoba47 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Other then that, this is a great article and a good read. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Adamstom.97: Thank you for your comments! I have addressed them above, and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - well done Aoba, I think we came up with a good compromise there that will be beneficial for readers. I am happy to support this article for promotion to FA Face-smile.svg - adamstom97 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Reidgreg[edit]

I did some copyedit on this article a few months ago, if that's a COI. In any case, here is some optional advice:

  • Infobox – Episode no.: The link on the numeral 1 could be confusing. Perhaps to better reflect the link's target, it could be piped over Season 1.
  • I am sorry, but I am having a brain fart moment. Could explain this part to me? I am sure it is good advice, and I would be more than happy to apply it to the article, but I just would like some clarification if that is okay. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ah. My issue was that Season 1 is not ideal linking. But the "Season" part is generated by the infobox, so a fix wouldn't be as simple as I had assumed. A workaround could cause problems, so I'm afraid I don't have any good advice on this one.
    No worries; I simply removed the link to avoid any unnecessary confusion for the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Infobox – guest appearances: hyphens shouldn't be used as separators (hyphens bring things together, dashes separate them). These should be replaced with en dashes (wiki: &ndash;) or, alternatively, colons or commas. If the en dash threatens an undesired line wrap, you could change the bulleted list to an {{unbulleted list}}.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Development: Torres into human and Klingon parts as part of an experiment, to improve the prose from the repetitive "part" while keeping to plain English, I'd suggest replacing "parts" with "individuals" or "halves".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redundancies/conciseness: there's an "along with" which could be just "with", "spent some time considering" could be "considered", "was also available" could be "was available", "Harrisson also noted" could be "Harrisson noted".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Clarity: In Sulan examines the Klingon Torres as she experiences extreme agony from the Phage does as mean he examines her because she is experiencing agony, or that he examines her while she is experiencing agony? It's a subtle difference, but at the FA level is probably worth rephrasing – although there are other plot issues to be addressed first (see below).
  • Revised. I agree that this is extremely important so I have made the appropriate changes. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Two other cases of as with the because/while ambiguity: Torres was more manipulative than Beauty from the fairy tale, as she uses her sexuality and the Klingon should receive more prominent attention of the two, especially as Torres struggles with that side of her identity throughout the series.
  • I agree that these nuances are important. I have revised these parts to hopefully add more clarity. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Production: Between Writing and Casting and filming, there are about six sentences that don't especially fit and might be moved to a new section, Production design. (This would be for the sentence about the jungle location changed to caves, tying in with budgetary concerns that had the episode produced near the end of the season, the set construction, make-up, and the Emmy nomination for make-up.)
  • I have relocated those sentences. Thank you for the note about this! Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There have been updates to MOS:TV in the last couple months, and these affect parts of the article. I would consider this optional, but here is my advice if you want the article to be MOS-compliant:

  • The Plot section is 545 words, which is over the new MOS:TVPLOT recommendation of 400 words. I can see shaving off 50 words fairly easily, but 150 would mean some serious cuts. Let me know if you want specific advice on cuts.
  • Thank you for the comment. I would greatly appreciate some more specific advice on what to cut as I am having difficulty. I have removed and reworded some things, but I am having difficulty with finding what to remove without taking away the context for a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have cut it down to 400 words. I would still be more than happy to hear your suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    You did a good job reducing the plot! Some things I might change:
    • The second sentence is a little long and could be broken, with the part after the parenthesis integrated into the third sentence as: He infects Klingon Torres with the Phage, a deadly disease afflicting his species, to study her genetics since Klingons have a natural immunity.
    • A little further down, it might read better if you broke from the chronology slightly and tied together the two parts about her Klingon heritage, then the two parts about Sulan's attraction: Klingon Torres expresses pride in her Klingon identity, though she remembers hiding her Klingon heritage as a child. Recognizing Sulan's attraction to her, she tries to seduce the scientist and escape, but his desire to find a cure overcomes his lust.
    I believe those changes would knock it down to 380 words, which gives you a little room to add something back in. Nothing seems to be missing, though. (I suppose, just for fun, you could put in the stardate.)
    Thank you for the suggestions. I have revised the plot suggestions with your ideas. I am very happy with how the section turned out, and I prefer it now that it is more concise. I think I will leave out the stardate to avoid putting some so in-universe as one of the first things in the body of the article to avoid confusing an unfamiliar reader. I agree that everything appears to be covered so I am happy with how it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It is also recommended in TVPLOT to avoid having actor's names in the plot section. So, more reason for a short cast section (and that will also remove a quick 17 words from the plot section). Check MOS:TVCAST for recommendations if you want to go forward with that.
  • Removed actor's names from the plot section. I am still not 100% convinced on the value of a cast section, especially when it has not been done for featured articles on television episodes. I think that the article does not necessarily require one, but I would be more than open to hear your suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    There's nothing wrong with the way you've done it in prose as the actors/characters are mentioned. Cast lists tend to be used at main articles because they're easier to update, but there is a general preference for prose over lists and you've done a good job.
    Thank you for the clarification. And that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I like how the article has been improved over the past few months, particularly the Racial analysis section. Good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your advice and your kind words. I will try to have the corrections done by the end of today by the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Reidgreg: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed all of them. I had a brief question about the infobox, and I would greatly appreciate any help with cutting down the summary as I am having some difficulties with figuring out what to cut. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for comprehensive writing, MoS compliance (disclosure: I made three edits on the article, all minor). Reidgreg (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help; I definitely need to familiarize myself better with MoS so I will read through it more thoroughly in the near future. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • The first image is properly sourced and licensed. The Comic Con logo is de minimis, so there's no copyright issues.
  • The second image has an appropriate fair use rationale.
  • The captions for the images are fine.
  • For the alt of the first image, he is looking straight forward.
  • "while the one on the right has straighter hair and a uniform with a yellow strip." You mean left?

-- 1989 14:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @1989: Thank you for the image review. I have revised the ALT text; not sure what I was thinking when writing some of them lol. Aoba47 (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ok then. I'll pass the review then. Overall, good work. -- 1989 15:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Paparazzzi[edit]

  • On "Plot" section: "overcomes his lust The human version..." I think there must be a full stop after "lust"
  • On "Casting and filming" section: The prosthetics and make-up for the Vidiians was handled.... Shouldn't it be "were"?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, I think you did an excellent job with this article. Since my comments are only two, and are really easy to address, I support this nomination. Congrats, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support and comments. I have revised the articles according to your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "He separates her into a full-blooded Klingon and a full-blooded" - Klingon is already linked in the lead section
  • Unlinked. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the plot section, I notice that only the Ensign rank is linked but the others are not. I have no problem with this and am probably just nitpicking here
  • It is good to nitpick. I have linked the other titles. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Dawson clarified that "The Human" did not have strength or courage while the Klingon" - does "The Human" need to be in quotes here? I just thought this because it isn't quoted later on in the paragraph
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The episode was also available on numerous streaming video on demand services, such as Amazon Video iTunes, and Hulu." - the episode, along with the series, is also on Netflix. Is it worth mentioning that?

I'm going to support outright as I'm certain this meets the "well written" aspect of the FA criteria. I know that I've come to the FAC quite late and consequently haven't found any glaring issues to raise since the article already has been polished. Excellent work! JAGUAR  20:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments and your support. I have addressed your above comments. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Krish![edit]

  • Support: I think the article is very well-written and covers everything. It deserves to be a FA. Well done.Krish | Talk 06:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support! Aoba47 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant[edit]

Sorry for joining in late, I'll put up comments shortly. NumerounovedantTalk 13:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • No worries; this FAC has only been up for a couple of days (five days at the time that I am posting this actually), and I am very happy to have received so much feedback so quickly (so technically you are not late at all lol). I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
A quick comment: I find it odd that the article goes on explaining the Nielsen ratings in the Broadcast and release section. I think it's totally irrelevant, and the wiki-link to the ratings' page suffices for the people unfamiliar with the ratings system. Do you have a specific reason for adding this bit? NumerounovedantTalk 19:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to add that bit to make the meaning of 6.1/10 percent immediately clear to the reader without having to click to a separate page in order to decipher its meaning. I figured the percentage may not be as clear as a straight forward number (i.e. "The episode was viewed by a total of X million people" or "with Nielsen ratings of X") so I just wanted to make it as user/reader-friendly as possible. I can remove that part and revise the sentence if you believe that it is necessary, as I completely understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I have remove the extraneous information and revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the first sentence of the second paragraph fits better at the end of the first.
  • "restore" sounds really odd in context of a person, I understand what it implies buy is there really not a better word?
  • Remember that this is science-fiction narrative so it is not realistic. I personally do not take issue with the word "restore" considering this context. The show uses the word "reintegrate", but that also can sound odd in reference to a person. I would be open to hearing your suggestions, but again remember that narrative in general is pretty odd in the context of a person to begin with (splitting someone into two copies of themselves). Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have modified this slightly to say "restore to her original state" to hopefully clarify this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The characters' makeup was conceived by Michael Westmore to emphasize the difference between them" - Not sure what this means. It somehow makes it sound like Westmore had something to do with the makeup looking a certain way. If that is the case it could be rephrase otherwise they could work better as two separate sentences.
  • Revised; I do not believe this needs to be two sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe"ratings share" is more appropriate for Nielsen score (rather than "percent")
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is an awfully long quote in the section immediately after the "Phage" entry. See if you maybe trim/paraphrase parts of it.
  • Paraphrased. Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that the Emmy nomination for prosthetic make-up belongs in the reception section, but since it has more context here I'll it you to decide.
  • I feel better with putting closer the information on the prosthetic make-up to provide a fuller context rather than throwing it down in the "Critical reception" subsection, where it really doesn't flow or fit with any of the discussions going on there (which primarily focus on Torres as a character and Dawson's performance). Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent with the use of "human"/"Human" when referring to Torres.
  • I believe that I have corrected, but let me know if I have overlooked any. Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 06:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


The section looks good to me. Just a couple of suggestions:

  • The opening sentence of the Critical Reception part can be better. Simply saying that the reviews were largely positive and following it with a review works fine, but the mention of the aspects that were praised (and maybe an extra review focusing on some more aspects) would elevate the part.
  • Revised. Thank you for pointing this out for me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Allen Kwan also cited the episode's final scene as a negative commentary on race in his article "Seeking New Civilizations: Race Normativity in the Star Trek Franchise". Kwan wrote that Torres'" - In such cases, use a pronoun instead of repeating the name.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ""Faces" and its focus on the character of B'Elanna Torres have been the subject of analysis on race." - I think that it would be more appropriate if you simply said that "The focus on the character of B'Elanna in the episode...". The current version suggests that the episode drew attention for more than racial storylines as well.
  • Revised. I used "the character of Torres" instead as I refer to the characters through their last names so I want to make sure that I am consistent throughout with this in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The rest looks fine. NumerounovedantTalk 20:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Numerounovedant: Thank you for your comments as always. I have addressed your above suggestions, and I look forward to hearing back from you about this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You have my Support. Great work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk 20:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! I look forward to continuing to work with you. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Tintor2[edit]

All sources seem to be reliable whereas the urls are archive. The only thing that makes me wonder is how confusing Den of Geek takes to Dennis Publishing. Nevertheless, the article passes the source review.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the source review! It appears that Den of Geek is redirected to Dennis Publishing, and I can completely understand your confusion about this as it is a little jarring to click something and lead to an article with a different name. It seems that Dennis Publishing publishes Den of Geek along with several other items. I have revised the reference slightly to better reflect that. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe that this FAC has received enough feedback/comments to warrant promotion; it also received an image review and a source review. I honestly did not expect this to go so quickly. Thank you to everyone that commented on this! Aoba47 (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Any updates? I apologize for the repeated ping, but I was just wondering since it has been about five days and this has not been addressed. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are almost there. I'd just like a little more of a look at the prose as I think it could be tightened slightly. If I can't find someone to have a look, I'll recuse and do so myself. In any case, there's no great rush as this isn't even two weeks old yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your response, and that makes perfect sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Vanguard10[edit]

I enjoyed reading the article. I do not like to criticize others, especially when so much work has been put into this. However, consider the following points.

  • The plot section is completely without attribution. I do know that it is acceptable for any reader to watch a film or watch a TV show and then write a plot section in Wikipedia. However, the standard for a FA are very high. If Wikipedia lowers the standard and permits no citations because they are very hard or impossible to find, should such lowering of standards be allowed for FA's? I cannot answer this except to say that reviewers should think very hard before allowing an article to become a FA when a critical section has no citations. Perhaps somewhere out there is an episode review, like a movie review? If so, that could be the citation.
  • To the best of my knowledge, plot sections do not require citations as the episode itself is the citation. If a citation is absolutely necessary (and again I do not believe it is so according to Wikipedia policy), then I would cite the episode directly as an episode review would not be appropriate in this case. I am not entirely certain where the "lowering the standards" part is coming from as this is done for a majority of the FAs on television episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
An article about a TV episode is, in my opinion, extremely difficult to write to meet FA standards. As mentioned, the plot is extremely subject to interpretation. It would be far easier if one reviewed the written script and knew what was in Act I, Scene I; Act I, Scene II; Act II, Act III etc. To just have a freehand version without citations or just adding a citation as the TV episode is really against what Wikipedia is all about. One administrator wrote regarding another Wikipedia article "We'll need a direct source, not what you saw on TV, and it should be reported by more than just one news outlet." This comment was not about any article up for FA consideration but just a regular article. I fully realize that it can be very frustrating to the editor trying to bring an article to FA status. I don't know the answer. I will leave it up to the FA reviewers. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We will just have to agree to disagree on this on this one. Citing the episode is enough support as if someone really wanted to check the information for accuracy, then he or she can watch the episode cited. Respectfully, I am not seeing the issue here regarding this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the information given has only one source and it is an opinion. For example, "Faces" was first broadcast on May 8, 1995..." has only one source but more probably exists and this is factual, so only one citation is fine. Compare that with "The episode was positively received by the cast and crew for its representation of Torres' internal conflict over her half-human, half-Klingon identity". That sounds like an op-ed and lacks more than one citation if even one citation. Political articles in Wikipedia are subject to a lot of fighting because opinions are gleaned from one source and then only one opinion is presented.
  • This was more of a topic sentence that reflected what was being discussed in the paragraph. I always use this resource when constructing "Reception" sections for fictional characters and television episodes, which suggests that "For each paragraph come up with an overall statement of what the paragraph will tell the reader, and use this to create a thematic opening sentence." I would just encourage you to remember the context and content of this article. This is not an article on politics, but an article on television, and the expectations and rules on style is different from political articles most likely. Hopefully, this makes my point clearer. Thank you again for the comment, as I do greatly appreciate you for taking the time to provide comments on this. It is always good to get more eyes on an FAC to get different viewpoints so I hope that I do not sound rude as I just want to offer my viewpoint and open a space for discussion with you as I do value your viewpoint as well. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Some sentences lack citations. I would recommend going through with a fine tooth comb and see that if a sentence does not have a citation, there is a reasonable explanation for why it's not needed or that the facts are not that important. Again, that is a high bar but FA's are supposed to be Wikipedia's finest work.
  • Everything in the article does have citation. I do not put citations repeatedly (i.e. if two or more sentences in a row are from the same source, then I use use the citation in the last sentence to avoid unnecessary repetition) so in fact everything does have a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Are there sufficient free-use images?
  • I believe there are enough images in this article. If you have any specific suggestions, then please let me know. I believe any additional images would be distracting from the actual content of the article. My reasoning is that I do not see any point in which more images would better illustrate any part of the article better to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there should be some information about actual production of this episode? There is mention of " It was originally going to be set in a jungle, but the location was changed to caves after director Winrich Kolbe calculated that the former idea would exceed the episode's budget.[8" but it might be interesting to expand this and even mention what the budget was.
  • To the best of my knowledge, there is not more information about this particular part of the episode and I do not have any information on the exact amount for the budget for this specific episode. I respectfully disagree with the claim that this article does not have enough information on the production of the episode when the article includes information on the writing, filming, and even some bits on prosthetic work so I do not fully understand your comment for this context. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The sub-section "Separation of B'Elanna Torres" doesn't fit into Production. It is more of an analysis of the plot.
  • I respectfully disagree completely on this. The first paragraph focuses on Dawson's approach to the character and performance, the second paragraph focuses on how the scripts were written and given to Dawson and Biller and Dawson's perspective on the storyline, the third paragraph is about the use of a photo double, and the fourth paragraph is about the filming. I do not see how this relates to anything, but the production of the episode. Also, I would caution you to view this as "an analysis of the plot" when all of the information being presented is from people directly involved in the show, and not third-party critics or commentators. This section is somewhat similar to "The creature" subsection in the FA for "The Man Trap" in which it focuses on the production, filming, and cast and crew comments on a specific part of the episode. Hope this clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, I know that writing an article to FA standards is very time consuming and difficult. I am not stating that this article should fail FA candidacy. I only say that there are some questions in my mind, some of which I present above. I hope it is acceptable to present these ideas in the hopes that the editors writing the article will take another look to see if it can be improved. Good luck in your quest. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Vanguard10: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed them above. I respectfully disagree wth a majority of the points raised, but I greatly appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you. Just for clarity, I am the primary and only editor that expanded the article and brought it to this point. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Good luck! As mentioned before, I don't want to discourage anyone from getting an article promoted to FA status. It is a huge amount of work. Even if someone is not successful, that editor deserves a barnstar for all that article improvement made.
A final comment, consider a list of characters, actors who played those characters, director, and some of the production staff. This is an integral part of a TV episode, not just plot and some production information and analysis. qaStaHvIS yIn 'ej chep. (Klingon for "Live Long and Prosper") Vanguard10 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments! I greatly appreciate that you took the time and energy to provide such extensive feedback, and stayed civil and positive while we discussed our differences in our opinions. You actually have inspired me a lot on how to better handles discussions in which editors may not see eye to eye on certain issues. If you look previously in this discussion (I am very fortunate to have received such amazing response, including yours), specifically the comments from adamstom97, then it can be seen that this idea for a character and cast list has been discussed and I think a fair compromise has been reached. This is still an interesting discussion to have though, and it may be helpful/beneficial to raise this talk page for the Manual of Style for television articles to gauge the opinion on using character/cast lists in television episode articles as I can see the value of it and it is always good to re-examine style guidelines to make sure that it helps all of the readers. Again, I hope I did not come across as rude for disagreeing with you as I really do appreciate your feedback and I have enjoyed our conversation. I look forward to working with you in the future, and seeing your future work as well. wo’ batlhvaD (For the honor of the Empire!) [Random side note, but you should check out the fact that they are going to be teaching the Klingon language on Duolingo if you have not already heard of it. It is interesting, and I have a special place in my heart for fictional languages through my linguistics B.A.) Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
My final comment is to have an objective and critical discussion about FA articles. If the criteria for promotion is to compare the article to Yesterday's Enterprise, which is a FA, then this one passes. If the criteria includes some of the topics discussed, then I leave it to the FA reviewers to make a decision. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment, and it is very good food for thought. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Norwich War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The next in my series on war memorials by Sir Edwin Lutyens for those following along at home, this number six, and about halfway through the English memorials with FA potential. The previous two were both in York; this one is a long way further south and slightly further east. Sadly neglected in the early 21st century, it has since been restored to its full glory. Although not a large memorial dominating its surroundings, it's nonetheless quite an impressive one in my opinion. It was unveiled by a disabled ex-serviceman; that the committee had no trouble finding a wounded soldier for the duty speaks to the profound effect the First World War had on Norwich, which of course is a microcosm of Britain as whole.

This is a relatively short but comprehensive article, and as ever, all feedback is gratefully received. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know Norwich quite well, and I'm pleased to see this article here. I made a very minor edit to insert what appeared to be a missing word, otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll support this shortly. Few small things....
  • Lead: Would prefer abandoned to "abortive".
  • Makes no odds to me, so done.
  • Norwich's war dead and by 1926 - comma or punctuation of some sort needed (imo)
  • Done.
  • an empty tomb (cenotaph) - remove the cenotaph clarifier - mentioned and linked already above
  • I think this is worthwhile as cenotaph isn't necessarily a widely understood term and Norwich's doesn't resemble Lutyens' other cenotaphs (which tend to be raised high on pylons, and many people think the pylon itself is [part of] the cenotaph). It's actually the reason I had the link there rather than on the first mention. I'm open to better ways of doing this if you can think of any.
  • Fine with either or. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Never heard of a flambeaux before, link pls. Also, it is how it sounds, no need to say "at either end can burn gas to emit a flame" - works from burning gas or sumfink.
  • and the City Hall in 1938. In 2004... Can you rephrase so the two years are not placed so close together.
  • Yep.
  • at the same time all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed - I don't understand this. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Gone.
  • These are trivial points you are free to ignore.
  • I have spot checked 4 refs; (9, 17, 18, 21). All ok, no issues. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much Ceoil! Happy to talk some more about cenotaphs and flambeaux if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Have only ready half the article so far, but cenotaphs are in my area of interest, if you have more. Flambeaux is my new favourite word. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • which was initially deployed - I have a real problem with the way 'initially' is used on Wikipedia, though more on music articles than in this instance. 'Originally', or 'at first'
  • Norwich, the county town - The city of?
  • Sorry, I don't follow. You're suggesting "the city of Norwhich, the..."? Or something else?
Say "the city (or town) of Norwich" rather than Norwich, the county town Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I can add "the city" if you think it would help, but I wanted to keep the county town link to make clear the relationship between Norfolk and Norwich. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Norwich, the county town" is not a great construct. Not something I'd go to the mattresses over however. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Approximately 33,000 men served overseas with the Norfolks, though many more joined other regiments. Norfolk men presumably, rather than men in general
  • Indeed.
  • Thousands of war memorials were built across Britain after the war.
  • Sorry, not sure what you're suggesting here either.
Ok. In the aftermath of the war and its unprecedented casualties is fine on 2nd reading. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London - In rather than on? maybe in Whitehall, London, though yes that's an Americanism.
    • Well, Whitehall's the street and the Cenotaph is in the middle of it so "on" seems appropriate.
Ok. But can you say Whitehall street or road, as I assumed it was an area. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It's just called "Whitehall" (I know, that's Londoners for you!); Does linking it help? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
A link perfectly solves. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
These are very picky, yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm running out of things to say, a good sign, so Support from me. This a very fine, worthy and interesting article. Well done Harry.

Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! If cenotaphs are your thing, you'll like what I have in store next. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support comments by auntieruth
  • almost ready to support.
  • question on this sentence Withers was selected at random from among the city's ex-servicemen who were natives of Norwich, had enlisted prior to the implementation of conscription in 1916, had served overseas, and had been permanently disabled as a result of their service I think I understand it. He was selected from a pool of the exservicemen who had all been natives had enlisted prior to conscription, and had...yadayada....? I had to read it several times though. auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per MOSCAP violations. Also the total cost was £2,700 (1927); it'd be nice to have a conversion to modern value. Other than that I think it looks ok. --John (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

moscap violations? are you referring to the caps of the on the inscription? ....?auntieruth (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it either. Wot. Ceoil (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that the issues are
* "The Royal British Legion " should be "the Royal British Legion";
* " Its place in the Memorial garden " > " Its place in the memorial garden ";
* " between the new City Hall and the castle." > "new city hall";
* "(on the Stone itself)" > "stone";
* "the Guildhall " > "guildhall".
NB "Market Place" is presumably the proper street name, as opposed to "a market place". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Market Place is indeed the street name. RBL cap the "t" but I've de-capped it anyway, likewise memorial garden. City Hall is a proper noun (it's the name of the building), as are Stone of Remembrance and Guildhall. But I think John's issue is with the inscriptions. Still, the inscriptions are in allcaps on the memorial itself, and they're quoted in allcaps in every single one of the sources (some inline like I've done, some as a blockquote). Personally I think it would be silly to make Wikipedia the sole exception, and sticking to the sources is a higher priority—the MoS is, after all, supposed to be a guide and no guide can cover every possible scenario. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, I still think that "on the Stone itself" should be lower case - the "Stone of Remembrance" is a proper noun, but "the stone" isn't - for comparison, one would say "in Norwich Castle", but "in the castle". MOS:INSTITUTIONS, part of WP:Capital, would seem to prefer "the guildhall"/"the city hall" or "the Norwich Guildhall"/"the Norwich City Hall"... I don't have a strong opinion on the inscription issue, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Re inscription, if it is similar to proclamations, the instructions here do say not to capitalize it. And since the opposer left no instructions, what can we do?
I think if a building is named the Guildhall, it should be in cap. If it's called Fort Knox, our Guildhall, that would be incorrect. Go to the guildhall building, and turn left, not caps. Go to the Guildhall and turn left. yes. auntieruth (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about Stone, so I've decapped it. I believe a strict reading of the MoS would disallow the use of allcaps for the inscription, but the MoS is a guide (the tag at the top says best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply) and I believe this is a small and reasonable exception where following the sources is preferable to following the letter of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Nice work on the caps, and I take your point on the inscriptions. What did you think about my other point on the currency conversion? John (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support; I reviewed at A Class and was impressed by the piece then. A further reading, with the FA criteria in mind, confirms that for me this fulfils the FA requirements. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Joe Warbrick[edit]

Nominator(s): Shudde talk 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the rugby union footballer who conceived of, selected, again captained the 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team that toured New Zealand, Australia and the British Isles. They averaged a game every 2.3 days while in Britain -- a ridiculous number -- and frequently had to field injured players just to compete with a full complement. The team was truly pioneering and consequently Warbrick was probably one of the most influential players of the 19th century. The article has been though GAC, FAC, and I've had the valuable feedback of a number of editors. I believe it's ready for FAC and look forward to any comments. Shudde talk 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The match was very ill-tempered, with each side accusing the other of rough play - do we need the "very" here?
exasperated his foot injury. - you mean, "exacerbated his foot injury", right?
I think it is worth putting a line in about the win/loss record of the England trip as reading it one is left wondering....

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've addressed those comments. I appreciate you taking the time to give it a read. -- Shudde talk 06:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hence, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

I'm commenting as an outsider to rugby, which I have never played. Despite that, the jargon of the game seems clear to me in the article, and I find Warbrick's story interesting and its abrupt ending painful to contemplate. I made quite a few minor copyedits as I went. Please revert any you disagree with. Here are further suggestions and questions:
  • "In 1888 Warbrick conceived of, selected, and captained the privately funded New Zealand Native team." – This closely mirrors part of the first sentence: "later captained and selected the 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team". Eliminate the repetition?
  • I have tried something. It's not drastic, as I like the opening sentence of an article to firmly establish why a subject is notable. But hopefully my changes reduce the repetition a bit.
  • "He played for Auckland against the first overseas team to tour the country – New South Wales – in 1882. – Rather than using an Easter egg link, I'd suggest recasting to something like "In 1882, he played for Auckland against the first overseas team, the New South Wales Waratahs, to tour New Zealand."
  • I don't think it's too much of an Easter egg, but unfortunately I can't use Waratahs to disambiguate. New South Wales didn't pick up the moniker the Waratahs until a 1927–28 tour. The team in 1882 was actually known as the "Cornstalks"! I have tried to reword.
Background and early career
  • "... ,but eventually included several New Zealand-born, and foreign-born, Europeans... – Delete the three commas for better flow?
  • Done.
  • "Joe Warbrick was their third of five children." – Smoother would be "Joe Warbrick was the third of their five children."
  • Done
  • " His father married again after Joe Warbrick's mother died, and had a further seven children." – More clear would be "After Joe Warbrick's mother died, his father re-married and had seven more children."
  • Done
  • "at St Stephen's Native School in Bombay" – Readers from afar may mistake this for Bombay, India, at first. Maybe "in the former town of Bombay in the Bombay Hills of New Zealand"?
  • I've played with this, hopefully acceptable now.
  • "By 1879 he was living in Wellington, and represented the the province three times that season." – Rather than the Easter egg link to "the province", I'd suggest saying "represented Wellington province as a member of the Wellington Rugby Football Union".
  • Your suggestion doesn't quite work, but I've tried something. See what you think.
  • I think in this case it should be too much of an Easter egg, as it's referring to them as an overseas team and not a state or colony.
  • "whose national side had already developed a strong rivalry" − Another Easter egg. I'd suggest saying, "whose national side had already developed a strong rivalry known as The Ashes" rather than surprising the reader with the unexpected.
  • The rivalry is not known as the Ashes (unfortunately). So I have tried a note instead.
  • "publican" – I would suggest "pub owner" to avoid confusion with Roman tax collector, another kind of publican.
  • Publican is a very common term in New Zealand English. I doubt too many people, in the context of the article, will think he was Roman tax collector.
  • OK. "Publican" is not common everywhere, but I agree that readers will probably get the drift from context. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Retirement and later life
  • "Warbrick accompanied her and when they moved into position, barely two minutes after the party had moved, the geyser erupted killing them all." — I can't be sure whether this means two minutes after she and Joe moved or whether it means that the whole party moved closer to the geyser. Would it be better and still accurate to say, "Warbrick accompanied her, and barely two minutes later the geyser erupted and killed the entire party."?
  • Yes. Changed.
Impact and legacy
  • A short film, Warbrick, was released in 2009..." – Any idea who made the film or released it? Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. Added some information. Also added a link to the film online.
  • Good addition. Using the link, I watched the film just now, which added to my appreciation of the difficulty of the sport. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Finetooth: Thank you for your comments and edits. I checked through them and they're all very positive so thanks a lot. Hopefully I've addressed all your comments. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 11:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome. Very interesting article. I'm switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment The article mentions Warbrick playing against Tynemouth, but the link points to Tynedale RFC. The latter club are based in Corbridge, which is inland, a fair way from Tynemouth - could you check back with your source and see which it should be? There is no article for a Tynemouth club and none seems to exist now, but there could well have been in 1888. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bcp67: Thanks for your comment. That's very well spotted. The source says that they played Tynemouth in North Shields on 7 November 1888. I'm not sure if the club still exists but havn't been able to find anything. For now I've removed the link. -- Shudde talk 07:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

  • You have "Auckland" (unlinked) and "Auckland" (linked) in the second para, the first I presume is the Auckland, while the second is pipelinked to Auckland rugby union team. The odd back-to-front linking and possible easter-egg issue means this needs more thought.
    • They were officially known as Auckland Provincial Clubs at the time so this fixes it I think.
  • "first overseas side" - "the first overseas side".
    • Changed.
  • " in 1882. In 1884" maybe some elegant re-wording here?
    • Tried something.
  • "in the British Isles, " vs " to visit Britain," are those the same thing?
    • I'm not sure I understand your question here.
      • Well Britain is usually England, Scotland and Wales, while the British Isles includes all manner of other islands... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Warbrick effectively retired from rugby after returning from the tour except for a single match for Auckland in 1894," - maybe "from the tour, with the exception of a single appearance for".
    • Changed.
  • "He was killed by an eruption of the Waimangu Geyser in 1903." unusual turn of phrase, I'd be more specific, many eruptions of the Geyser have taken place, what, precisely, killed him?
    • I'm not sure how many ways there are for a geyser eruption to kill someone. But he was killed by the superheated water ejected during the eruption rather than by some other injury. I have expanded this sentence.
  • His position in the infobox is given as three-quarter yet that's not even mentioned in the lead.
    • Added
  • Also, his "New Zealand No." is given as 17, so I'm assuming that he was the 17th player to represent the All Blacks? Deserves more than just a passing mention in the infobox considering the first XV would have been 1 to 15...
    • I don't think it does. They played a match in Wellington (basically a pre-tour match) prior to departure to New South Wales. This was the first official match and where the numbering system would have started. As mentioned in the text Warbrick didn't make it to Wellington before the team departed so wouldn't have been able to play. So he wasn't one of the first 15 players (in retrospect) to play for New Zealand.
  • Grafton is in the infobox, but nowhere else.
    • I have removed this, Hastings and Hawke's Bay County from the infobox. He was quite itinerant and could well have played for a large number of clubs, but they don't all warrant discussion. In these cases though they've been added without references, and so I've removed them.
  • Ditto for Hastings.
  • And Hawke's Bay County.
  • I'm also seeing some odd parentheses in the Points for the national teams section of the infobox.
    • A number of changes have been made to the infobox over the last few months. I've left a note on the template talk page requesting a fix, as I havn't been able to fix this myself. This particular problem occurred very recently.
  • "Joe Warbrick was the third..." is Joe the same person as Joseph?
    • Yes, the nickname (and common name) is mentioned in the first sentence.
  • "While living in Bombay in 1877 he started " would expect a comma after 1877.
    • Added.
  • " well north of " doesn't feel encyclopedic.
    • What would you suggest?
  • "a record he still holds" see {{as of}}.
    • I'd never seen that. Added.
  • "By 1879 he was living in Wellington, and represented the provincial team three times that season" what season? You only mentioned the year of 1879, what "season" are you talking about?
    • Rugby seasons are the same as the year in New Zealand, winter being mid-year. I could say "in the 1879 rugby season" but that seems a bit unnecessary.
      • Well given a vast number of readers will be northern hemisphere, why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " He again played three matches for " awkward, why not "He played three further matches..."?
    • Changed.
  • "visit by Wellington to Auckland, was won by the visitors " visit ... visitors, reads clunky.
    • Modified.
  • "and his goal in the match was the only score; many Aucklanders claimed that his performance was the difference between the two sides." this is undoubtedly true, but it seems like a statement of the obvious. Is there more to this than I'm reading?
    • Yeah this is a tough one. I actually found it hard parsing this in a way I was completely happy with. I thought it was good enough as is, but your comment makes me think again. I had included a quote from the source in the note to help clarify, the quote reads "In the early days in Auckland they used to tell us that Warbrick was the main factor in a match won by Wellington against Auckland – the one played in 1880." So if you have any suggestions I welcome them, because I'm a bit stumped!
  • "New South Wales became the" find that odd that it's a link to a team rather than the state, plus it's worth clarifying that it's an Australian entity.
    • I think because the statement reads "New South Wales became the first overseas rugby team " it shouldn't be a surprise it's referring to the team and not the colony, but I have reworded to explain that they're a colony (not a state at this point right? or were they a dominion?)
  • " first a 7–0 and then an 18–4 victory over the tourists." tighten, to just " 7–0 and 18–4 victories over the tourists."
    • Done.
  • "is now officially regarded as the first New Zealand representative rugby side.[15] " that is referenced by a single source from a 1968 reference. Is there more than this?
    • This is a relatively easy statement to verify so I can find more sources, but is there anything specific you are looking for?
      • No, but there is a tendency when making such "first" claims to rely on just one source, it'd be better for a couple of other sources to corroborate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could link Napier.
    • Done.
  • "against Wellington, and also against New South Wales – who were again touring" against, against, again. poor prose.
    • Modified.
  • "The first British Isles side visited New Zealand in 1888." why be so clandestine? Spell it out, a Lions tour and all that, is actually interesting and would give the opportunity to explain a little of that Lions history plus remove some of the Easter egg linking.
    • I am generally reluctant to use the term Lions as they weren't known as that for another 35 years, but if you insist I will change it. As for history, I tried not to add too much because it's a bit beyond the scope of the article. A little bit is mentioned about the team later in the article (in the "Preparations" section) but mainly as they relate to Warbrick and the Natives. But I will add a little something promptly, however if there is something specific you are looking for let me know.
      • I have expanded this a little and also managed to insert the Lions moniker in there. Let me know what you think.

I'm about half-way, I need to sleep, let me know how you get on with these trivial comments, and I'll do my best to get back soonest for the rest of the (very interesting) article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments as usual. I've replied to, or addressed your points as best I can. Let me know what further suggestions you have. -- Shudde talk 18:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, kids are nearly in bed, dinner is nearly on, I'll try to grab half an hour later to review your responses and finish reviewing the rest of the article. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "In early 1888 Warbrick announced plans to assemble a Māori side to face the visiting British during their tour,[26] but he later revealed a plan" plans ... plan, etc, lots of prose repetition here.
  • "Initially 20 players were selected for the side – which was named the " no need for the em-dash here. Maybe just nothing or at best, remove "which was" and replace with a comma.
  • General thought - is it worth a footnote to describe the manners of scoring and their relative worth? Some people (association football, MLB, fans) would read this thinking "high scoring!" while some others (union, American football) would be thinking, "low scoring!"?
  • Link Surrey appropriately.
  • "The side continued to play regularly..." last side mentioned was Surrey...
  • "they averaged one game every 2.3 days " this is statistically accurate, no doubt, but I would just prefer to see it as how many games over how many days.
  • "Warbrick only played twice more in the following month,[50] " okay, so if you're going to say "only" then tell me how many games he could have played in....
  • Link "tries", and also (thinking back to a previous comment) we need to ensure our readers know what the scoring regime was. These days, as you know, five points for a try (four points when I was a player)...
  • "where they had won 49, lost 20, and drawn 5" just "winning 49, ..." is tighter.
  • "However due to injury Warbrick only appeared in 14" firstly commas missing here, secondly, reiterate 14 matches.
  • "eight other members played" members of what? you mean "team-mates" or something.
  • "a conversion against Devon.[50]" conversion and Devon could be linked.
  • "traveled" or "travelled"? I'd say the latter, be consistent.
  • "Victorian Rules Football" pipelinked to "Australian Rules Football " which redirects to "Australian rules football", please don't do that.
  • You haven't linked Queensland, this is probably not the place to do it, but please link it somewhere, first preferably.
  • "but the Queensland controversy still hung over the side." although this may be true, no inline citation for it.
  • "and dismissed taking any further action" is "taking" required here?
  • "played an early match in Gore " what's an "early match"?
  • Link Widnes (who you haven't mentioned at all).
  • "the Natives had not lost a rugby game in 31 matches – the side had won 30 and drawn one match over that time." various issues, no need for "the side had", MOSNUM fail, etc etc maybe "the Natives had not lost a rugby game in 31 matches, winning 30 and drawing the other." or similar.
  • "tour remains the longest in the sport's history.[41][73]" see WP:ASOF again.
  • "Five years later he" later than what (it's a new section)? And should we have a comma there?
  • Link Taranaki appropriately.
  • " an Auckland paper wrote" do you mean a "newspaper"?
  • "Warbrick married Harriet Burt with whom he had one daughter" when?
  • " Chief Government Guide" don't link tour guide there.
  • "of the 1888–89 Natives – the first New Zealand team to tour the British Isles –" is the reiteration really necessary here?

"The film was played for New Zealand's national team – the All Blacks – during their preparations for a match against Australia in 2009." suddenly a little too much explanation, we already know they're called the All Blacks, stick with that.

  • "Williamson, Martin. "A brief history of the Ashes Part One: England v Australia 1861 – 1888". remove spaces around the date range.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Seventh Victim[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 1943 film noir-horror film The Seventh Victim, directed by Mark Robson. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • See my edit summary on my first edit today; I hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "if scenes weren't cure": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A quirky film, just the type FAC reviewers will like. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I don't edit or review that many film articles but I'm a sucker for the Val Lewton productions. Oddly enough this is one of the few I haven't seen, so I guess I can be pretty objective here... So far I've done a fairly quick copyedit for prose -- pls feel free to discuss any concerns. I plan to come back later to look at structure, detail and referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

Hi Drown Soda, I've done a copy edit, but please revert anything you don't like (except the names; that did need to be changed). Some feedback:

  • The men were all surnames and the women first names (except for one sentence where all are first names). This isn't only because Mary and Jacqueline share a surname; Natalie Cortez was first name too until I changed it: "Judd [male surname] makes a second visit to Natalie." Even on first reference, Mary and Jacqueline's surnames were left out, while the men were introduced in full. I've changed some of it, but because you have to use first names for Mary and Jacqueline, you might consider using first names for everyone after the first reference.
  • The plot summary was written before you began editing the article, and it isn't that clear. Why did she marry secretly? It says she is suicidal but also that she's refusing to kill herself. Then suddenly she does. The IMDb summary is a little clearer.
  • You describe Mary as naive and mature.
  • What is the "double suicide that ends the film"?
  • "Purportedly Lewton was warned not to make a film with a message, and he replied that this film did have a message: 'Death is good.'" This is the source. It isn't clear to me that the message discussion was about this film.
  • Can you unpack what you mean about it violating the Motion Picture Production Code, and do you have a source?

SarahSV (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Re: my suggestion to use first names, I'm not sure this would work with Dr. Judd.
  • Is the school called Miss Highcliffe's? Edmund Bansak calls it Highcliffe Academy.
  • The article doesn't mention the opening line from John Donne: "I run to death, and death meets me as fast / and all my pleasures are like yesterday." It used to include it (e.g. here), but it was removed at some point. SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The name of the private detective, Irving August, was missing, so I've added it to the plot summary, but he should also be added to the cast and characters. SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

SarahSV (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Heathenry (new religious movement)[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a new religious movement whose practitioners seek to revive the belief systems of pre-Christian Germanic Europe, including the religions of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Goths. It has been GA rated for some time and was previously at FAC between February and March; it received no opposition but at the same time attracted very little attention at all. Hopefully this time round a larger number of editors will consider reading it and offering their thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Generally the sources seem of good quality. Normally "Hardman and Harvey Paganism Today" would raise red flags because it's self-published, but it is held by a good number of academic libraries so shouldn't be that much of an issue.
  • Thorsons is an esoteric publisher, although I did not think that it was a self-publishing platform. However, the chapters in this particular book are written by academics or people with academic training and at least one of the two editors is a professional religious studies scholar. For that reason I felt that it was an acceptable source to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of linking Diana L. Paxson in the sources section.
  • I do find the lack of books such as Our Troth or Essential Asatru in the further reading section to be a bit surprising. Or the lack of them being used to cite practices/beliefs. It does tend to make the article look like it doesn't reflect what the actual groups actually say about themselves. Obviously we want to rely on secondary sources when possible, but totally not citing any of the actual groups for their own practices seems a bit odd. Kind of like not citing any Christian theology texts for an article on Christianity.
  • I really wanted to avoid the use of primary sources in this article. That is why it relies almost exclusively on secondary—and particularly academic—sources. Some of the authors of these academic texts are non-Heathen scholars, but others are scholar-practitioners, so there certainly is some input from 'insider'-based perspectives here. The main reason why I wanted to avoid primary sources was because they typically only present a particular viewpoint or perspective that is often not shared by other religionists. If we were dealing with a small, homogenous, religious group that has set doctrines then primary sources might be acceptable, but for a broader, heterogenous religious movement (whether Heathenry or Christianity) I think that using them causes more problems than it solves. In the case of this article, there was a big problem with an Ohio-based editor (since banned for repeated edit warring, disruptive editing, and sock puppetry) repeatedly rewriting the article using the primary sources that they favoured, thus pushing their own particular angle on what Heathenry was, or at least what it should be. By steering clear of primary sources we avoid the problem of pushing particular doctrinal differences and also do not have to deal with the problem of selecting which primary sources can be used and which can't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • But you don't even list them in the further reading section. Nor do you have any "official links" to websites. And there are some general heathenry sources that cover it for beginners without going into specific groups - at the least some of those could be listed in the further reading. It is very odd to read an article on a living religion and not have any links/books BY those practitioners at least listed in the further reading/external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I've added an "External links" section with the official webpages of a number of the larger Heathen groups, from various countries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've also added some primary sources to a new sub-section of "Further reading". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I will try to review the article in total later - my husband is Asatru/Troth so I happen to have some knowledge. (Note, I am NOT heathen myself, but you do learn a good bit just by being in the same household.) I'll do a spotcheck of sources then - just ordered a couple of the works through ILL.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Definition:
    • "Some Heathens also adopt ideas from the archaeological evidence of pre-Christian Northern Europe and from recorded folk tales and folklore from later periods in European history. These textual sources nevertheless.." archaeological evidence isn't a textual source, but the second sentence implies that they are. Not sure how to reword this better, but it is jarring.
      • Hmm. Difficult one. Would "The textual sources" be an improvement, in your opinion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I think it would. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "Other practitioners who emphasize a hard reconstructionist approach.." probably best if you define "hard reconstructionist" above in the sentence "The ways in which Heathens use this historical and archaeological material differs; some seek to reconstruct past beliefs and practices as accurately as possible, while others openly experiment with this material and embrace new innovations."
      • I agree that there is some issue here. Given that the term "reconstructionist" has different potential meanings, I felt it best to remove "hard reconstructionist" altogether here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "and sectors of the Heathen movement have perpetuated misconceptions about the past" ... perhaps a couple of examples in a note?
  • Gods and spirits:
    • "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes toward polytheism changed." awkward - suggest "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes towards polytheism have changed." or "Such negative attitudes towards polytheism changed after the 1970."
      • That's a good idea. I've gone with the first suggested option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "Heathenry is animistic,[56] with practitioners believing in nonhuman spirit persons commonly known as "wights" (vættir) that inhabit the world,[67] each of whom is believed to have its own personality."... I'm not sure that animism actually is held by all heathenry groups - I'm still getting a trickle of the article's sources in so cannot consult the works used to support this sentence yet.
  • Cosmology and afterlife:
    • Be consistent in italicizing or not italcizing "wyrd"
      • I was trying to go with a system of italicizing the word on its first appearance but then leaving it un-italicised after that, but I can see that this does generate some confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Morality and ethics:
    • The article constantly use the past tense to describe what scholars say, which can occasionally lead to issues. An example: "Sociologist Jennifer Snook noted that as with all religions, Heathenry was "intimately connected" to politics, with practitioners' political and religious beliefs influencing one another." By saying "Heathenry WAS..." you are implying that it is not a living religion. You can avoid these problems by putting the scholars statements into present tense.
      • I can see the concern here, but I also think that adopting present tense wording would cause new problems. Each of these scholars was operating in a particular place and a particular time, and some of their comments, although valid at the time, may no longer be. Where I think that a change to present tense won't cause problems, I have made the change.Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Rites and practices:
    • " Prospective members may undergo a probationary period before they are fully accepted and welcomed into the group, while other groups remain closed to all new members.[123] Such groups are largely independent and autonomous, although they typically network with other Heathen groups, particularly in their region." ... does the "such groups" refer to the closed groups or to ALL the groups mentioned in the preceding sentence?
      • It means all groups. I shall make this clearer in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Blot and sumbel:
    • Be consistent on italicizing "blot".
      • Italics are used when the word is first introduced and again when the text is specifically discussing the etymology of the word "blót". Other examples are left without italics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Likewise for "sumbel"
    • I got lost with this sentence "The contemporary use of runes for divinatory purposes is however found more widely than within Heathenry, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." Do you mean that the use of runes for divination is practiced outside of heathenry? Or does it mean that the use of runes for divination is MORE widely practiced outside of heathenry? And did the use of runes spread from heathenry to other new age practices or did it develop in new age practices independent of heathenry?
      • I've amended this to the following: "Some non-Heathens also use runes for divinatory purposes, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." I don't really know whether the divinatory use of runes within the New Age developed independently of Heathenry or not; the sources does not specify this, unfortunately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Festivals:
    • "a tradition that they share with many contemporary Pagans." oooooh.... ouch. Wheel of the Year is very much witchcraft/wicca. LOTS of controversy in the overarching pagan community over equating "Pagan" with "Wicca/Witchcraft". Can we reword to state more clearly that other contemporary pagans do NOT share this idea of the wheel of the year.
      • I think that it is utilised be a lot of Druidic and Goddess Spirituality groups too, as well as more generic self-described 'Pagans'. However, I get your general point, so have refashioned this section of the sentence to the following: "a tradition that they share with Wiccans and a number of other contemporary Pagan groups". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "Such festivals can be held on the same day each year..." which festivals are we talking about - the wheel of the year or ALL of the festivals mentioned before this?
      • I've amended "Such festivals" to "Heathen festivals". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Racial issues:
    • "religion of the 'Aryan race' that cannot rightly be followed" any reason you used single quotes here around "Aryan race" where you use double quotes everywhere else?
      • I think that the single quotes were used to reflect the problematic nature of the very concept of an Aryan race, but I agree that it looks a little strange so I have removed the quote marks altogether in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I spot checked a few citations to works and all were paraphrased properly and supported the information in the article.
Otherwise everything looks good. As an aside - when are you going to work on my own cultus: Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism? (no pressure! And yes, with the husband being heathen and myself being neo-Roman, it is occasionally interesting in the house!) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Ealdgyth; I am working my way through them. It would be nice to work on Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism in future although I'm not sure that there are many academic sources dealing with it. I am currently focusing mostly on New Age, Rastafari, and Satanism, but may turn my attention back to certain modern Pagan groups in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep my eye out for sources for any of those articles. Don't worry about the scanty stuff available on RPR, when we go to bookstores, there are usually at least 10 shelving units of "religious" books. Of those units, we're lucky if more than 10 shelves are devoted to non-Christian topics. And usually it's a shelf of "wicca/new age" books. If we're lucky, we may see one book on heathenry on that one shelf. I've yet to find (outside of Amazon) any work on RPR/cultus deorum/religio romana. And of course, all the mythological books are full of Greek myths, which are not the same thing as Roman religious practices. It's like being invisible sometimes.... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

None of the images have alt text. Could you please fix this? -- (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added alt-text to all of the images, Thank you for the suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! -- (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Some images have both a fixed px size and an upright scale factor - should be the latter only
  • File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg: should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg, File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If possible, could you please give me some pointers here Nikkimaria. The artefact depicted in File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg is an exact replica of a Viking Age artefact, while File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg is an actual photograph of such an object. Given the vast age of these items, there can be no copyright restrictions on them under Swedish law. Moreover, I am a little confused about File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg; what is it in this image that requires an additional copyright tag? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the status of the carvings pictured? For ancient objects, any of the copyright-expired tags should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The carvings are religious objects, and I don't think that they carry any form of copyright. The photograph itself has been released as PD by the individual who took it, User:Achird, so I don't think that there is a problem here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added PD-tags and explanations for both File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg and File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Support. I made some minor changes to grammar and wording, but feel free to revert anything. Woebegone (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The iconic Hawker Hurricane I fighter saw service with the Royal Yugoslav Air Force immediately prior to WWII, then during the April 1941 Axis invasion of the country. Later, the Partisan leader Josip Broz Tito negotiated the creation of two Royal Air Force fighter/bomber squadrons staffed by Yugoslavs, one of which flew ground support missions for the Partisans in 1944–1945 using the Hurricane IV. The aircraft was retired from Yugoslav service in the early 1950s. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Logical presentation, easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Placeholder -- I reviewed/copyedited/supported this very interesting article at MilHist ACR, but will give others a chance to look it over and perhaps suggest their own improvements before I walk through here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support I believer this article meets FAC standards. No suggestions for improvement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)[edit]

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "Habits (Stay High)" and its remixed version, "Stay High", both tracks were successful in 2014 and made the artist Tove Lo a famous singer. I nominated the article before but it was not promoted because there were not enough reviews. It is currently a GA. Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Should the first sentence read “from her debut extended play” rather than “for her debut extended play”?
  • Would it be useful to provide a link for extended play in the first sentence?
  • I am not certain about the phrasing of the second half of the second sentence (starting with “while produced by”). It just doesn’t seem to mesh back to the original subject so I would suggest inserting “while it was produced by” to make it a little cleaner in my opinion.
  • I do not think the “However” in the lead’s first paragraph is necessary as the phrase about Lo being signed to record label is enough of a transition to stand on its own.
  • Is the image of Tov Lo really necessary in the “Background and release” section? It really doesn’t add that much to the article and the reader’s understanding of the song, and the single covers already show the artist, as well as the later images.
  • In this section, I would recommend splitting the first paragraph in two as it is rather long. May with the sentence starting with “11 December 2012” as it is moving to a different topic. It may be helpful to better guide a reader’s attention throughout the material.
  • I am not certain about the name of the “Composition and inspiration” section. I have seen a majority of song-related articles be “Composition” section. Just food for thought.
  • I think you do an excellent job with quotes in this article, but there are a few stray ones that I think would be better paraphrased (i.e. “weaker songs” in the “Critical Reception” section and “most intense” in the “Composition and inspiration” section). I would just look over quotes with one or two words and see if paraphrasing would make it stronger. I do this a lot so I just want to give you food for thought on this.
  • More as a note, I have a lot of respect for you for putting the antifeminist reviews in here. It is good to be as comprehensive as possible, even though I personally hate those reviews and the reviewer’s points of views (it is sad to still these types of things written about women).
  • You should have a citation for the quote in the caption of the first music video screenshot. Same for the other screenshot.
  • You have done a wonderful job with this article. I will support this nomination after my comments are addressed. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments, and thank you so much for your collaboration (you were the only one who commented on the past nomination, so thank you a lot for that). Regarding the antifeminist review, I included it on the article due to the lack of negative reviews for the song (the three Billboard reviews from the second paragraph come from the same source). Like you, I do not, in any way, agree with what that man thinks and says about women and the singer, I just wanted to make the article as neutral as possible. However, I was thinking about removing the review, since it feels more like an attack to the singer rather than a critical analysis of the song. But I want to have a second opinion about it. Again, thank you so much for all the support you've been giving me all this time. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Awesome job with this article; it was a very interesting read. I think that the review fits with the article in terms of neutrality and comprehensiveness, but I would definitely look into getting more feedback on whether or not it is appropriate for this article. I can definitely support this nomination, and I hope that it goes more attention this time around. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. Hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia municipal election, 1951[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Philadelphia's 1951 election, which was a landmark in the city's history. After 67 years of Republican dominance, the Democrats joined with independent advocates of good government to forge a winning coalition for mayor, city council, and other city offices. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "major city": I don't know what that means.
    • The source I cite for this uses the phrase "large city" and I took it to mean cities that were the centers of their own metro areas; so, Philadelphia and Seattle, but not Trenton and Tacoma. Sort of like the astronomical definition of a planet "clearing its own orbit." I'm not sure of a better way to say it, but I'd be glad to shift it to "large city" per the source or to anything else you think makes sense.
  • "its political scene safely controlled by Republicans": ditto.
    • Changed to "to have nearly all of its political offices occupied by Republicans."
  • "controlled the Republican organization": ditto.
    • Changed to "led the Republican organization". They were generally considered by contemporaries and later commenters to have been political bosses, which is what I was trying to get across.
  • "the Republican machine": ditto.
  • "Despite being slandered as a communist": "slandered" is primarily understood as a legal term; who was found by a court to have slandered him?
    • It was actually considered per se defamation in Pennsylvania to call someone a communist! There was a case arising that same year on point, Matson v. Margiotii, and it was upheld in 1964 when the same Joseph Clark featured in this article sued someone for libeling him as a communist (Clark v. Allen). That was still good law at the time I was studying for the bar exam, but would likely not hold up to a court challenge today. But in 1951? Definitely.
  • "776664": ?
    • Removed.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks as always for the thorough review and improvements to the prose. Please let me know if any of these answers need clarification. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

I have only one major(ish) comment, which goes to comprehensiveness: see the first dot point below. The rest of my comments are fairly minor.

  • The new city charter is mentioned on five occasions, including in the article's opening sentence, before there is any explanation of what it did, and then only in relation to elections for the offices of City Councillor. The new charter sounds like it is integral background to the 1951 election, and worth an overview or explanation somewhere earlier in the article. When reading the article I kept hearing about the new charter while wondering what it was all about. Even after the explanation of how elections to the City Council were changed, one is left wondering whether there were other material changes. For example, late in the article it is said that "A statewide referendum on the ballot that day continued the work begun by the new city charter in asking voters to consolidate the city and county governments in Philadelphia." What is the "work" that is being continued by the 1951 referendum?
    • That's a good point. I had intended to write a separate article on the charter that I could link to, but that hasn't happened yet. I'll work on summarizing it and report back to you when it's done.
  • "The positions contested included those of mayor, district attorney, and all seventeen city council seats, among other offices." - the word "included" renders "among other offices" unnecessary.
    • Fixed.
  • "As the vote tally became apparent" - Should it be "result" instead of "vote tally"? The vote tally wouldn't have become apparent until it was fully counted.
    • Yes, fixed.
  • "The Progressive Party, a left-wing party founded in 1948 around Henry A. Wallace's presidential bid, also ran two candidates who took less than one percent of the vote." - I don't think "also" is needed, and it confuses the sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • In "Aftermath" there is "Democratic party" and then "Democratic Party".
    • Fixed
  • "Since that time, the Democratic party has dominated the city's politics, with no other party electing a mayor or a majority of the city council in the intervening years." - Is "in the intervening years" necessary?
    • Probably not. Removed.
  • "As the Republicans have declined, the main battle in city politics has been within the Democratic Party." - I'm not sure that this sentence can be cast in the present tense when it is sourced to a reference from 1982.
    • I think it's better now.

I think the article does a good job of using varied language to repeat election results in a non-tedious manner. Sometimes this has required colloquialism ("Lennox came out ahead"), but the colloquialism is acceptable for the purpose.

I checked the Freedman and Reichly references and both are accurately represented.

I might have more minor comments later. Syek88 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for the review! I've addressed all but the first point, and I'll work on that today. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, these should all be addressed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. On a final read-through I didn't have any further comments, so I'm marking this as a support. I think the new explanation of the charter is in the right place. Syek88 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Werónika[edit]

  • I added Category:1950s in Philadelphia and alphabetised the categories. I'll do a more thorough look over the article later.
  • Could you add description/alt text to the images? Werónika (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the review and the category fixes. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Here are my revisions; I just made minor changes to the wording. Feel free to revert any of them. Great work! Werónika (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Seal_of_Pennsylvania.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design?
    • According to the state website (archived version here) the design dates back to 1681, and the final version we use today is from 1893. Even if it was copyrighted, I think that means it has passed into the public domain now, doesn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
      • It would, so we'll just need an appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • File:JosephSClark.jpg is tagged as lacking description and author info, and the copyright tag may not be correct
    • The credit here says "U.S. Senate Historical Office," which I think means that they're saying it's their own work. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure, given the info in my link... is it possible to confirm? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I'll send them an e-mail and see what happens. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria: They e-mailed back: "The photo of Joseph Clark is indeed in the public domain as far as we can determine, and can therefore be used freely with proper credit: U.S. Senate Historical Office." The person I talked to also asked if I wanted a higher rsoleution version, to which I said yes, so I'll upgrade the image if that happens. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • File:City_Hall_Philadelphia.jpg is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This reads nicely, and I could find little to quibble about. Here are three minor suggestions:
City commissioners
  • "The most important of the remaining duties of a commissioner in Philadelphia was the conduct of the city's elections; they also had responsibility for regulating weights and measures." – I recommend changing "a commissioner" to plural "commissioners" here to match the plural "they" after the semicolon.
Row offices and judges
  • "The office of sheriff was another holdover county office, and was the chief law enforcement officer of the court system, a separate job from the chief of police." – An office isn't an officer. Perhaps this would be better: "The office of sheriff was another holdover county office. The sheriff, whose job differed from that of the chief of police, was the chief law enforcement officer of the court."
  • "... Edward W. Furia for clerk of courts, an office charged with the collection..." – "officer" rather than "office"? Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, those are all improvements, and I've made the changes. Thank you for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Switching to support on prose as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Kragujevac massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) and 23 editor.

This article is about a massacre of nearly 2,800 men and boys carried out by the German Army in the occupied territory of Serbia during WWII. It was carried out in reprisal for the killing of 10 German soldiers and the wounding of 26 others in accordance with a set ratio of 100 hostages to be executed for each dead German soldier and 50 hostages for every wounded German soldier. Several of the generals responsible for ordering the massacre were tried after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • Some great work has gone here, and I am certainly leaning towards supporting this nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Yugoslavia came to share its northwestern border with the Third Reich " - this is the first mention of the Third Reich in the article. Many readers will be familiar with this term, but there will surely be some who are not. I would recommend replacing it with "Nazi Germany". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "her neighbours" - I'm being picky here, but I'm not sure that describing Yugoslavia with female pronouns is particularly encyclopaedic. A more neutral "it" would be more appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, done.
  • "Adolf Hitler began placing" - who is Adolf Hitler? I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I think it important that we specify "Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler" or something of that nature. There may be readers in parts of the developing world for whom Hitler does not have quite the same fame (or infamy) that he has in Europe and North America. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I went with German dictator.
  • "Two days later, a group of pro-Western, Serbian nationalist Royal Yugoslav Air Force officers deposed the country's regent, Prince Paul, in a bloodless coup d'état, placed his teenaged nephew Peter on the throne, and brought to power a "government of national unity" led by the head of the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, General Dušan Simović.[" - This is quite a lengthy sentence. How about trimming it in two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Split.
  • Not in this case, as it was only a puppet government, and not a puppet state.
  • It might be worth restructuring the lede a little. At present the article has one rather long opening paragraph, two medium length ones, and then a short one. Generally I think it best to start with a shorter opening paragraph, or at least to keep the lede paragraphs somewhat consistent; the excellent lede over at Gudovac massacre would be one to emulate on this front. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in "Clash at Gornji Milanovac" is very lengthy. I would suggest dividing it in two at an appropriate juncture. Maybe just before "A German officer who escaped reported..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88[edit]

My initial comment is about the extent to which the article uses exhibits from the Nuremburg Trials as sources. For example, much of the section entitled "Round-up" is sourced to a 20 October 1941 report written by von Bischofhausen about the events of 18-20 October (pp. 981 to 983). Von Bischofhausen of course was an integral player in those events, and his report is necessarily self-serving, pinning a great deal of blame upon König. I'm not entirely sure that it is safe to rely upon contemporary accounts by involved military officers as statements of fact about what happened. They are primary, not secondary, sources.

One other point about von Bischofhausen's report: he says that the villages of Mečkovac, Maršić, Grošnica and Milatovac were "mopped up", which I'm not sure is a euphemism for "destroyed" (the word the article uses).

I have also reviewed Misha Glenny's book, which I own, and that is represented accurately. Syek88 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously a likelihood that Von Bischofhausen's version of events is biased, but his account is only one version, it is contrasted with another one. It was also accepted by the Tribunal, so they must have given it some credence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I have amended the text to "mopped up". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It is still a primary source though, is it not? Aside from that point, the citation is to 'Nuremberg Military Tribunals (1950). "The Hostage Case".', which is apt to miselad, as it suggests that the citation is a judgment or document promulgated by the court rather than an exhibit of evidence written by a witness. If the exhibit is to be used as a source, and I think that is very questionable, the author in the citation should be von Bischofhausen. Syek88 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]


Nominator(s): 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader. 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The series is based on a one-shot manga by Kishimoto published in the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump." Wasn't it actually based on two one-shots? One simply named Naruto and the other that has Sasuke-look alike who even performs the Chidori (I think Karakuri was the name)
  • Avoid as many references as possible in the lead per guidelines
  • I would suggest mentioning at least in one sentence Boruto's series in the lead.
  • Remember to archive citations like citation 11.
  • For the first sentence of Conclusion, the year 2006 might fit there.
  • Before starting the plot section, I would suggest adding an intro like "the manga is divided in two 'parts'" so that newcomers understand it
  • Reference Masashi Kishimoto in reference 181 as well as other similar citations.
Good work. Now other things:
  • The Last: Naruto the Movie information lacks a reference unless the Boruto link already has it.
  • " ninth and the tenth Naruto films, as well as the original novel which was adapted into the eighth Naruto film" I'm a little lost since some films use the Shippuden subtitle whereas others like Blood Prison remove it. I suggest simply using the subtitle of the movie so that the reader will understand it.
  • Just wondering, but wasn't Neji Hyuga's cursed seal edited in the Western version of the series due its similarities with the Nazis? It could be used in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Added.
  • The 8th, 9th, and 10th films don't have the Shippuden part in the titles, and whether or not it was part of Shippuden production, it's redundant.
  • Do you have a reference for that?
Nope. Just wondering.
@Tintor2: -- 1989 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You have my support.Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Gen. Quon

I'll try to do a bit more to look this over later, but right now, I see two (minor) things:

  • I believe that per MOS:DOUBLE, titles of citations that are in double-quote marks should have titles or quotes within them encapsulated with single-quote marks. For instance, in reference 18, Boruto should be in single-quotes since the title itself is encapsulated by double-quote marks. You might check other refs for this.
  • Just a minor point here. The Amazon links direct a reader to the Japanese version of the web store, ending with "". It seems odd that the publisher is then identified as "", given that that's a 'different' url (I know that it's the same company, but it does remain that they are two separate marketplaces serving two different parts of the world). Perhaps in this case it would bee best to refer to the publisher as either just "Amazon", "" (with a piped linked back to the Wiki article), or maybe ", Inc." to illustrate that the publisher is the parent company and not the US-based storefront. Against, this is just a suggestion more so than a thing that needs fixing.

Like I said, I'll try to look at this again.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I fixed it.
  • I see where you're getting at, but all of the suggestions (except for Amazon since it's a disambiguation page) you had all redirect to, so IMO it would be a waste of time to do that. Fixed.
@Gen. Quon: -- 1989 19:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not required, but are there any other images? It's a bit naked as is (But this is not going to prevent me from supporting this). For instance, perhaps you could put something in the Confucianism section?
  • I did a few "-" -> "endash" changes. Feel free to revert if need be.
  • The final sentence of the second paragraph of the subsection "Novels" (that was a mouthful!) is unsourced. This is an issue since the sentence before is sourced, and the two sentences convey very similar info (in other words, consistency).

Prose is great. Once the above points are addressed, I'm ready to support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I added images in the past, and they have been removed, so I don't plan to add anymore images.
  • I added a source.
@Gen. Quon: -- 1989 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good work! Support.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Image review - the article contains a single fair use image in sufficiently low resolution, which has an appropriate fair use rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not sure the (ja) link to the Japanese Wikipedia next to the red link for Yukari Fujimoto is entirely necessary. I have never worked on an article like this before, but I think the red link is enough, and hopefully someone will make an article about it on the English Wikipedia in the future.
Other than that relatively minor note, I can support this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I put it in because it was recommended by WP:REDDEAL. People sometimes use those kinds of links to translate, and visiting her ja page and using translation software can give a bit more context. I think it should be restored. -- (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from ISD

Here are some issues I came across.

  • In the sentence: "He comments that the series was a comeback for dark fantasy that slowly faded away when Shonen Jump transferred to Ultra Jump in 1987", I think Shonen Jump and Ultra Jump should be in italics. Best make sure this style is constant throughout the article.
  • In the "General Roles" section, I noticed that you keep beginning sentences with the phrase: "She comments that". It might be worth altering this to make it a bit less repetitive.
  • In the "Novels" section, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the sequel light novel series of stories set after the end of the fourth great ninja war and beginning of Boruto (e.g. Kakashi's Story, Shikamaru's Story etc.). Reference to these books should be mentioned.

Once these are sorted out then I'm happy to support this article's promotion. ISD (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @ISD: Done -- 1989 22:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I now support this article's promotion to FA status. ISD (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments by

Could you please change "Asashi", the given publisher in reference #16 to The Asahi Shimbun (with wikilink)? Sad to see the semi-protection has been restored. -- (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Done -- 1989 00:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The prose in the gender roles section needs a good copyedit - there are several grammar issues with this section.-- (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Would you be able to look it over whenever you get the chance? -- 1989 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I've made some minor changes.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I would replace "the characters has" with "Fujimoto argues that the work has", and "Because of the character development" needs a 'how'. Not sure what "when they are written to improve their status in the story," means. I would scratch "series has an outmoded gender role", and replace some of the 'shes' with Fujimoto. Not sure that 'politically incorrect' is the most neutral way of phrasing this idea, as 'political correctness' is considered a pejorative term. Is it 'an' Hokage, or 'a' Hokage? -- (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the section. I placed the pejorative term in quotes due to that's what she said. -- 1989 00:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There still might be some other grammar issues that I haven't been able to see myself. Are there any other turns of phrase you've used from sources without using quotation marks? -- (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No. -- 1989 00:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"CdJapan" should be written as "CDJapan", because that's the orthography used on its About page. -- (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Fixed -- 1989 01:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

" "JAPAN ANIMESONG COLLECTION SPECIAL 「Naruto -ナルト- 少年篇」" " needs an English translation for those few bits of Japanese at the end. -- (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Fixed -- 1989 01:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Have English-language Japanese newspapers, such as those in Category:English-language newspapers published in Japan, been consulted at length? I note there are at least two articles from these newspapers being used - because Naruto was phenomenal, I'd expect there to be more. Library databases such as EBSCOhost or ProQuest can be helpful for chasing older articles. -- (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll see if I can find some that could be relevant to the article. -- 1989 01:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was able to find some except from Mainichi Shimbun. I couldn't find much from that source. -- 1989 03:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried Trove to identify further sources? Kliatt, Teacher Librarian, the Internet Bookwatch and the School Library Journal are quite well-regarded. -- (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget EBSCOhost, either: I found this in-depth article which talks a lot about how Kishimoto's art style has changed: Spanjers, Rik. "NARUTO." Critical Survey of Graphic Novels: Manga, May 2013, pp. 215-221. EBSCOhost, -- (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Added -- 1989 14:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason why only the Japanese and English language editions of Naruto are discussed? As the Anime News Network encyclopedia linked in the article indicates it was widely translated, it seems like a gap in coverage for other language editions to not be discussed at all (not even in the main list of chapters). -- (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Including other editions won't show any improvement to the article imo. If you seem to think the opposite, what type of coverage should be told involving other countries? 1989 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's an issue of comprehensiveness - 1c. Excluding these editions means the article is missing information, and it's yet another indicator of how well-regarded Naruto is, that it's been translated into many many other languages. Other featured articles, like Tokyo Mew Mew and School Rumble include information on non-English, non-Japanese editions of works. -- (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. 1989 21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Done -- 1989 10:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Can you please do the script-assisted thingie that makes dates in the 2009-01-08 format go into the January 8, 2009 format? When I added the trove sources to the further reading section, I lightly altered the citations from Trove's own recommendation, but didn't alter those. -- (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Done -- 1989 22:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Does this article meet MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? -- (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Per MOS:BADITALICS, marking Japanese text in italics makes it hard to read. 1989 21:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
BADITALICS would surely only cover the kanji, not the romanised forms of words (such as jinchuriki, etc.)? MOS:FOREIGNITALICS specifically uses some romanised Japanese words as examples. -- (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed it. 1989 23:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: - has this had enough depth of review? -- (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Jaguar

I'll call out any issues as I see them:

  • "Masashi Kishimoto first created a one-shot of Naruto for the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump" - according to the source, it was a September issue, not August
  • I think you meant Summer, which I have fixed.
  • "Background art became less emphasised in favor of characters" - not related to a sourcing issue, but there's an inconsistent use of American and British English here
  • Fixed.
  • "For Part II he said that he attempted not to" - Part II needs to be linked here and not in the second paragraph of the characters section ("so he emphasized it more in Part II of the manga")
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 19 - shouldn't the publisher be Viz?
  • No. Since Crunchyroll wrote the article, they are the publisher.
  • "that Naruto is known as a shonen manga because the series is aimed at boys, and also because the series is characterized by moments of intense action in the story development" - I can't access the pdf file given in the source. Perhaps it would be best if the url is deleted
  • I didn't label the reference with the subscription notice. Fixed. I could send you the article if you want to verify.
  • "while the remaining eighty episodes are original episodes that use plot elements not seen in the original manga" - this is not mentioned in the source
  • I changed the reference.
  • "It included never-before-seen scenes and much non-canon material was cut to make it more faithful to the original manga. In addition, it contains openings and endings different from the original series." - this is unsourced
  • Removed.
  • "As a bonus, the short original video animation Konoha Annual Sports Festival was included with the Japanese release of the film" - I didn't see this part mentioned in the source, but to be fair, does it need to be sourced if it's a canon thing?
  • No, since it's already sourced above. I moved the reference to the first sentence.

Those were all of the discrepancies I could find, albeit minor. I checked all of the online sources I could access though the a lot of them were either offline or Japanese. It's a solid and well written article overall. JAGUAR  12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jaguar: My replies are above. -- 1989 13:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing them so quickly. I'll support on the sourcing side of things. From what I've read the prose seems to be in good shape too, and has been further reinforced by the reviews left above. I did miss a couple of references because the links timed out, but I'm confident everything is in order. JAGUAR  17:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • After reading through the article, I don't really have any major concerns. It is informative and has a consistent tone and style. I am happy to support this for FA. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "It premiered across Japan on the terrestrial TV Tokyo and other TX Network stations on October 3, 2002. The first series lasted 220 episodes, as well as Naruto: Shippuden, a sequel to the original series with 500 episodes, that aired on February 15, 2007, and concluded on March 23, 2017." You give the last air date of the sequel but not of the original series; might as well be consistent. A couple of other points: "aired" seems wrong, since you mean "began airing" or "premiered"; and "as well as" implies that the sequel is included in the first series. How about: "It premiered across Japan on the terrestrial TV Tokyo and other TX Network stations on October 3, 2002. The first series lasted 220 episodes, ending on <date>, and was followed by Naruto: Shippuden, a sequel to the original series with 500 episodes, that aired on February 15, 2007, and concluded on March 23, 2017."?
  • "Naruto: Shippuden was first released by Viz in North America in September 2009. It was broadcast on Disney XD beginning in October of the same year": it sounds like the Disney XD broadcast was the first release in North America, so why does the previous sentence mention September?
  • Suggest glossing "jinchuriki", "jutsu", and "Sharingan" or with a footnote; nobody unfamiliar with the manga is going to have any idea what these are. I'd also suggest mentioning what a Tailed Beast is in the explanation of jinchuriki, since otherwise the reader doesn't know Nine-Tails is a Tailed Beast, which makes the kidnaps in Part II a little harder to explain.
  • "Orochimaru desires to acquire Sasuke due to his powerful genetic heritage, the Sharingan": I don't understand this, even after following the link. Does "acquire" mean "gain as a follower"?
  • "Akatsuki is successful in capturing seven of those creatures whose hosts are killed in the process": this makes it sound as though Akatsuki captures the Tailed Beasts directly. Shouldn't this be rephrased; he captures the hosts, and then extracts the Tailed Beasts, right? Or is there another capture step after the extraction?
  • I see some prose problems. Here are some example sentences and phrases that need work; generally these are clumsy rather than ungrammatical.
    • "He was originally working on Karakuri that he released to Shueisha in 1995 that got him an honorable mention in the Hop Step Award in 1996 when later on he was unsatisfied by the rough draft."
    • "which later formed into the manga series Naruto"
    • "devoted many panels of art to intricately display": "devoted" needs an "-ing" verb, so it would be "displaying", but it would probably be better to restructure the sentence.
    • "had him motivated": "motivated him" would be more natural.
    • "Kishimoto states.... Kishimoto stated..." in two consecutive sentences.
    • "he is proud of the work he put in the story, and is thankful that it made him become a manga artist in the beginning": "put into" is the usual way to say it, and "that it made him become" seems to have the sequence of events wrong -- writing the story is what turned him into an artist? Presumably this should say something like "it made him thankful that he became a manga artist".
The above is just from one very short section. A few more examples from later in the article:
  • "Since the series started serialization, Kishimoto decided the ending would feature a fight": I don't think "since" has the meaning you intend here; it's most naturally parsed as "because". I suspect you mean "After", or "Once".
  • "He wanted the fight to end with Naruto forgiving Sasuke similar to the time Naruto forgave Nagato"
  • "She comments that while the series' narrative shows that men and women demonstrate their skills in various ways, she criticizes how female characters are developed in a "politically incorrect" way."
  • "Cammie Allen, Viz's product manager, commented that, the main reason for the change was ..."
  • "and ran for 220 episodes until its conclusion on February 8, 2007.. The first 135 episodes are adapted from the first twenty-seven volumes of the manga, while the remaining eighty episodes are original episodes that use plot elements not seen in the original manga." 135 + 80 = 215, not 220; and you also need to be consistent in rendering numbers -- either 80 and 135 or give both in words.
  • "The series has adapted eleven films"
  • "Each of the three movies of the first anime series has a soundtrack that was released near its release date.": I can guess what's intended but this isn't the phrasing you need.
  • "Another fanbook was released to conmemmorate the series' 10th anniversary"
  • There's a missing quotemark somewhere in the sentence starting "He wanted each member to be...".
  • In several places -- e.g. in "Characters" and "Setting" -- there are one-, two-, or three-word quotes used as part of the explanations; I'd suggest paraphrasing to get rid of these. Using "convey the story" or "draw on" or "maybe" or "definitely not" as a quote shouldn't be necessary; there's nothing in these phrases that conveys anything that couldn't be equally well conveyed by a paraphrase.
  • I think you could lose a few of the more microscopic details. Do we really need to know Kishimoto's opinion of the computer architecture that might or might not be present but didn't actually show up in the manga?
  • You use "states" or "stated" a lot. I'd suggest using a less visible word; it's hard to overuse "say" and "said". They're more natural and the reader won't notice them as much.
  • "He does not consider the series to be a cheerful manga because of the way the characters and the environment were developed.": I don't follow this.
  • "Canonical to the franchise, the film tells the story of": I know what "canonical" means but I don't follow this.

Oppose on prose. The list of prose issues above is from reading the first section, plus glancing at the rest of the article; generally I skipped to the next section when I found something listed above, so I doubt this is an exhaustive list of issues. There are too many infelicities in the prose. Some of these can be fixed by straightforward copyediting, but some issues, such as paraphrasing, will take a bit more work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the copyedit and review. I'll resolve your issues above tomorrow. Would you be able to finish your prose review if I try to resolve the paraphrasing problem? Twofingered Typist told me he couldn't really understand it either when copyediting, and suggest that I use more quotes. Should that be the case? Also, how do you gloss something? 1989 20:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, "gloss" is shorthand (it's the same root as glossary). I meant "explain or define in the article text". I will try to find time to revisit, but since I was just skimming after the first section I think the whole text needs going over, not just the points I identified. If you can find a copyeditor for whom the points I made all stand out as errors, you've got someone who will probably also find any remaining issues. After a copyedit, if the FAC is still open, ping me again. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist: Would you be able to do any further copyediting in your own free time? 1989 21:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Hochkirch[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Seven Years' War battle at which the Prussian army was resoundingly defeated by the Austrians. It was a surprise attack; Frederick the Great ignored all signs that the attack was coming, and he lost big chunks of his army, several generals, and much of his supplies. See the article for details!  ;) This is one of a series: Battle of Kunersdorf (another Prussian defeat), and two of Frederick's resounding victories, Battle of Leuthen and Battle of Rossbach (still in puberty). This article is expanded, has passed GA, MIlHist A-class review, and I offer it to you for your consideration. Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, yada yada (I don't have my macros on this computer!)

  • I haven't checked out the new section, Seven Year's War
  • Support on prose, I reviewed this at A-class, yada yada. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I went over this in quite a bit of detail at MilHist A-class (indeed the new section on the background to the Seven Years' War was added at my suggestion) and was very impressed. I'm happy this meets the FA criteria and I'm glad to see it here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • This is NOT my subject area - so I don't know if Bodart is considered outdated in the field or not. But he is over 100 years old. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the use, it's not even a "red flag" but it is a concern.
  • he's widely accepted as the first to collate all this information. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Same holds for Longman.
  • this has been the "classic" study of FTG for years; subsequent studies use it. I didn't rely on it much, using instead the more modern versions.
  • Same for Malleson.
  • Malleson study is included to balance what could be a Prussia-centric narrative. Ultimately, it's a bit of lurid story-telling, but I didn't quote those parts.
  • Same for Ralli.
  • Ralli created a guide to Carlyle's massive study of Frederick the Great. TC visited all the battle sites. I used the Ralli work because it's shorter, more accessible.
  • Asprey in the Bibliography lacks a publication date. fixed.
  • Same concern on age for Robitschek.
  • this is one of the first specific studies (at least that remains) of the battle itself.
  • Re above: in addition, all these historians (except Bodart) agree that this was Frederick's blundering and arrogance that caused his loss here. This is not a new idea among historians; since they've been writing about it in the 19th century, they think he brought this on himself. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no need to list a 1903 fiction book in the further reading section. removed
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave these up for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps I don't know how to do this
  • Use |upright= - this scales the image relative to the user's preferences. For example, if you've set a default image size of 200px in your preferences, |upright=0.7 would display an image of 70% of 200px, or 140px. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Carte_Guerre_de_Sept_Ans_Europe.PNG: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • IDK and it's problematic enough to take off. I might fix it some day. Everything else should be addressed. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Nikki, someone else just added an image....not sure why he did it at this point, but he did. auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The new image has contradictory copyright tags - either it was published before 1923, or it wasn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


  • After several weeks of jockeying for position - dont understand the term jockeying for position in this context. With whom, for a start. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • replaced "jockeying for position" with maneuvered. The rest of the sentence says with whom. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm inclined otherwise to support this very interesting, comprehensive, well sourced, and well written article. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Louis Leblanc[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Previously nominated, and closed after two months due to last-minute commentary. I've now addressed that, and everything from the previous nomination. I also have contacted the users who left comments last time to ensure they see that the changes were made. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Hi. I'll start my review now. I see you've made some changes but my impression is that there is still a lot left unexplained or left for the reader to guess at. Here are some comments about the first section: Lead:

  • Would it be an idea to make the hierarchy of the leagues clearer?
  • "Eligible for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft, he was selected 18th overall by the Montreal Canadiens." If a reader doesn't know that the NHL is the top league, will the full context be clear that he was moving up in his career? One idea could be to "major league NHL..." or something.
  • "Leblanc spent three seasons with the Canadiens, mainly playing for their American Hockey League (AHL) affiliates, before being traded in 2014 to the Anaheim Ducks, who kept Leblanc in the AHL." Again, this wording assumes the reader knows the AHL is lower down than the NHL. I guess if they click on the wiki-link you provide for American Hockey League, that helps, but the reader should be able to get some of the context within the current article itself.
I'll address both of the above here. I feel that defining the NHL anymore here isn't necessary; it isn't something other sports-related articles do, and I feel its something that can easily be found through the NHL article itself. Regarding the AHL, while the lead doesn't specify it too much, it is the lead, and the body of the article does clarify the NHL-AHL relationship, or at least attempts to.
  • OK, for now let's assume this is all right. I may have one more think about this issue before the end of the review, but for now your reasoning makes sense. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "Leblanc was selected 18th overall by the Val-d'Or Foreurs in the 2007 QMJHL Draft, but instead went to the Omaha Lancers of the United States Hockey League (USHL)" If he was selected by one team, why did he have a choice to go to another team? Readers may wonder.
Moved some words around, but not sure how to make it much clearer.
  • OK, thanks. I appreciate you're trying to make it clearer. I'm just trying to understand this part for myself: He had to be selected for the Val-d'Or Foreurs in a draft—and he rejected being picked by them—but he was able to go to the Omaha Lancers without any kind of draft process? Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In short, there are separate junior leagues in Canada and the US, and teams can have the rights to players in their respective country, but it doesn't apply in the other. So Leblanc was drafted, and had his Canadian rights, owned by Val-d'Or, assigned in the draft, whereas he was free to sign with any US-based team (of course its more nuanced than that, but this is not the place for that discussion). Now that said, I have seen reference that there was a similar draft for player rights in the US, but I am unable to get anything resembling a source to back that. But to keep it simple, he was free to move to the US because the draft only covered his playing rights for Canadian teams. I hope that makes sense.
  • OK, we may not be able to improve this, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "At the end of the season, Leblanc was ranked by the National Hockey League (NHL) Central Scouting Bureau as a top prospect for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft;" Again, it would be nice to be clearer that the NHL is the top of the hierarchy, and what most players strive to reach.
See the first note; the reader is either going to know the status of the NHL, or the relevant article will do better explaining than anything here could.
  • All right, see above, let's leave this issue for now. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "their final list had him 13th overall among North American skaters" I guess that "skaters" simply means "players" here, and is used to add variety. But I'd like to suggest "players" might be the more encyclopedic term.
I agree, however it is a specific term used for the ranking: they are divided amongst "skaters" and "goalies," and so to use "players" would be incorrect and wrong.
  • I see. I wasn't aware of that. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Canadiens General Manager Bob Gainey also applauded Leblanc's decision to move to the United States and play in the USHL rather than stay in Quebec with the QMJHL. Gainey felt it was a more difficult choice that helped Leblanc's development as a player, and showed his good character in making such a decision." Again, it's not clear why Leblanc was able to decide this when the QMJHL had selected him. Also, I was left wondering in what way this would have been a more difficult choice.
Tried to add some context, but again without adding massive notes to this that distorts everything it becomes challenging to get specific.
  • Is there any minimal extra context that could be added in a footnote? Then it wouldn't disrupt the flow. But I'm not sure exactly how much extra explanation this would actually involve, so if you still think it's not feasible, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, it goes against the traditional narrative in hockey circles, in which it is almost hearsay to suggest a junior player go anywhere but a Canadian team. For Gainey to have said that kind of goes against the established narrative, which if I had to speculate is possibly why he said it, as Leblanc defined convention; but that isn't exactly backed by a source.
  • "On July 30, 2010, Leblanc signed a three-year contract with the Canadiens. By agreeing to an NHL contract, he forfeited his NCAA eligibility and had to leave Harvard, being considered a professional according to NCAA standards." I see that you tweaked this slightly based on my comment last time, but I still don't feel it's clear. If he signed to the Canadiens, doesn't that mean he wanted to imminently pursue a career with an NHL team? If so, saying that he "had to" leave Harvard and he "forfeited his NCAA eligibility" ("forfeited" suggests a possible sacrifice made) sounds misleading or at least confusing.
Changed wording to "professional," as that is the issue regarding NCAA eligibility.
  • It's undeniable that he was no longer eligible for the NCAA. But my point was, wasn't his dream presumably to succeed in the NHL? If so, saying he "forfeited" (which has a somewhat negative connotation) his NCAA eligibility seems to put a little emphasis where it doesn't belong. Why would anyone want to play in the NCAA when they had a chance to make it big in the NHL? Trading one's NCAA eligibility for a spot in the NHL is a positive thing, not negative. Anyway, this is minor and maybe I'm getting too hung up on semantics. If you're comfortable with this part, I won't press this any further. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. This mainly stems from the fact that most younger players spend a few years in the minor leagues before they make the NHL, if ever. This includes playing in the NCAA, which has a four-year limit; and unlike the Canadian major junior leagues or AHL, players can not play briefly in the NHL to see how good they are and return to the NCAA, but must either remain at the university level or "turn pro" (NCAA policy regards the Canadian leagues as pro for reasons that aren't relevant here).
  • "After attending his first training camp with the Canadiens in September 2010, Leblanc was sent to the Montreal Junior Hockey Club (Montreal Juniors) of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) for the 2010–11 season." We learn later that it was Chicoutimi that sent him to the Juniors. Would it be clearer to explain that now rather than saying "was sent to" here?
Changed wording, think it may better reflect the situation.
  • See below. I think I have an idea for editing this when I have a window of time. Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the off-season the team relocated to Boisbriand, a suburb of Montreal, and were renamed the Blainville-Boisbriand Armada; the team would subsequently trade Leblanc's major junior rights to the Shawinigan Cataractes, though he never played for them." Readers may wonder why he never played for them.
  • I'd like to still think about whether there's a way the info about his various QMJHL contracts could be explained less confusedly more clearly. I'll get back to you if I have any ideas. Moisejp (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like to clarify better what I meant for my last point. I was suddenly called away to attend to something and wasn't able to choose my words carefully. I meant that there is a lot of activity described with Leblanc changing teams lots of times in a short period of time, plus there is some jumping back and forth in the chronological time line. Confusing is a strong word, but it's less easy to follow than would be ideal. It may be that this can't be helped—these are the events that happened and the article is describing them. But what I meant to say is I'd like to give another think about whether any further tweaking can be done—for example, by adding helpful transitions to the prose, or by rearranging the order the descriptions a bit—to help the reader as much as possible. If I can't think of any specific solutions for this, then no worries. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I can see what you mean regarding the transactions, in that they don't really have a clear place to go. However I feel that as they are really inconsequential to his career, it would be disruptive to put them chronologically, as it would just be some random note in the middle of relevant things happening. That said, they are still important enough to mention, as they clearly had an effect on his career (it was why he played in Montreal and not rural Quebec, after all; and if I can speculate, that may have influenced his choice to leave Harvard, as the team was close to the Canadiens). Thus I'd feel it wrong to outright remove the information, but to plant the trades sporadically seems an equally poor choice. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think they might work in a footnote? Maybe the most important information in the main text, and then a clarification in a footnote about how he had changed QMJHL contracts a couple of times before that. Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. Let me look at it.
  • I've got some ideas for possibly rearranging this section a bit. I'd like to give a whirl at editing it in the next couple of days when I have time. If my edits aren't an improvement, we can always revert back. Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Please go for it, I'm interested in what you got in mind. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • See what you think: User:Moisejp/sandbox3. Unfortunately in my editing I stripped all the inline sources. I hope it wouldn't be too much of a hassle for you to add them back in. Maybe I can help with it, but I didn't want to do any work on that until I find out if you like the edit. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and either changed things up or left my own opinion on some matters, and hope to hear what you think on them. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Kasier matias. I have been a bit busy the last few days, but hope to respond to your replies and continue the review as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem, I can relate to a busy schedule, so take your time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll continue reviewing the next part soon, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Answered you're queries above, so let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Macedonia, home of Alexander the Great, deserves an article worthy of His Majesty's name! It is the will of the gods and the birthright of the Macedonians to both conquer and rule this little section of Wikipedia. Like the glorious Philippeion of Olympia, Greece erected by Alexander's one-eyed father Philip II, this article has been constructed for the glory of Macedonia (no, not that Macedonia you pleb). Although it has attained the rank of Good Article status, anything less than Featured Article status would be a shameful insult and blight on the cherished name and memory of the Argead dynasty.

Other editors and I have worked hard to bring to you the present incarnation of this article, which is well-sourced, well-illustrated (with all the appropriate copyright tags/licensing), meticulously proportioned and balanced, and linked to appropriate sub articles via Wikipedia:Summary style (e.g., History, Government, Rise of Macedon, Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonian army, etc.). In regards to the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size and the current size of this article, please view our community discussion and consensus (external link). I consider that talk page discussion as necessary reading before any of you raise any sort of objection about the article's size, which has been drastically reduced even since the successful GA nomination, thanks to the creation of new sub-articles (authored by yours truly and currently GA candidates if anyone's interested in reviewing them as well). I look forward to the nomination process and I hope that we can have a thought-provoking, civil discussion on how to improve the article if necessary. Kind regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "Philip II": Inconsistency. It would probably be best to use "Philip II" at first occurrence in each paragraph and "Philip" after that, unless there's another Philip involved.
  • "utilized": overutilized. Substitute "used" for some of these.
  • "allegedly sent two-hundred ships": alleged by whom? If you're pretty sure he didn't do this, delete this phrase, and if you're pretty sure he did it, based on the sources, drop "allegedly".
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Another monumental achievement. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. As you've suggested, I got rid of the word "allegedly" in the sentence about Philip V's navy. However, I can find only two instances in the entire article where the word "utilized" has been employed. Are you sure that this represents an overuse of that term? Also, "Philip II" is numbered precisely because in that sub-section and in the next we refer to his son and one of his successors, Philip III of Macedon (or Philip III Arrhidaeus). In the following sub-sections we also discuss the reigns of Philip IV of Macedon and Philip V of Macedon. More than that, there's only one monarch in this entire article who has skirted the rule of repeatedly having a Latin numeral placed after his name (minus those monarchs who had unique names that weren't repeated), and that's Alexander the Great. He is mentioned once in the article as Alexander III of Macedon, yet we shorten this to Alexander or just Alexander the Great because that is how the general public knows him. This follows the rule of Wikipedia:Common names where, for instance, we refer to the politician Bill Clinton as such, not by his full name William Jefferson Clinton. Likewise, we do not use the full names or even the surnames of well known performance artists Bono (Paul Hewson) or Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta). I actually attempted to have Alexander the Great mentioned as "Alexander III" in every instance, but these Latin numerals were removed by another editor. I did not want to engage in an edit war and I recognized the Wiki guideline about the use of common names, so that's why the article looks the way it does now. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to take the second paragraph of the lead, for instance: it's Philip II, then Philip, then Philip II again, and no other Philip has been mentioned. I think your basic approach is sound ... you want to keep reminding people you're talking about Philip II, but that gets tiresome so you mix in Philip. I just think that it's somewhat conventional to give the full name once in a paragraph and the short name thereafter, unless, in that paragraph, there are other Philips to consider. Again, great work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: thank you VERY much for pointing these out, as I was unaware of them. Another editor made some copyedits to the first few sub-sections recently and I hadn't noticed these specific changes in removing the Latin numerals after Philip's name in some places. I have edited the article to make it clear once again exactly which Philip of Macedon we are discussing in each and every instance. Once again, the only monarch who is allowed to shirk this rule is Alexander the Great, who is also named as Alexander III of Macedon in a couple places just to avoid any and all ambiguity. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
To be clearer, I meant "Philip II" at first occurrence in a paragraph and "Philip" thereafter, where it's unambiguous. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I should have added: use your discretion on what "unambiguous" means. In the second paragraph of the lead, no one else named Philip has been mentioned. Later on, you could argue that if another Philip has been mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, then "Philip" might be ambiguous. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)'s fine the way it is now, I think. Thanks once again for your review! Pericles of AthensTalk 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads, and I'm happy to see Tony working on that below. Two suggestions:
  • Is it possible to slide "Ancient: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]" over to the right, into a third line in the infobox, or to put it in a footnote?
  • "during most of its existence initially" is a little off; compare with "the whole time at first". One option is to start with "initially" and then put "during most of its existence" before the other two dynasties, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: hello again! I have shifted that pronunciation of "Makedonia" into a footnote as you've suggested. I've also reworded that sentence about the royal dynasties of Makedonia, although I did not use your suggested fix. The new sentence reads as thus: "The kingdom was founded and at first ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties." I think it sounds crisper this way. Sometimes simpler is better. --Pericles of AthensTalk 01:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps
  • Coins are considered 3D works and so should not generally use the PD-Art tag. Sculptural works definitely should not use this tag
  • File:Coin_of_Amyntas_III-161113.jpg needs a licensing tag for the photo
  • File:Pella_House_atrium.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
  • File:Aristoteles_Louvre.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:20100913_Ancient_Theater_Marwneia_Rhodope_Greece_panoramic_3.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: hello! Thanks for taking a look at these. The source info for Pella House Atrium is now fixed. However, I have a couple questions. Should the coins still contain PD tags, just not PD-Art ones? Since they are ancient art? What should I do for sculptural works? I am confused, since you say the sculpture of Aristotle and Theatre of Rhodope need copyright tags for the original work. Please be specific as to which precise tags are needed for each of these items, and I will gladly fix them. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 10:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
PD-US and PD-70 would apply to most of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: hi again. I have done as you've requested and fixed the license tags for each image of a sculpted work of art or coin. Please let me know if there are any pictures that I might have missed or that need further editing. I have also enlarged each and every map image in the article as you've suggested (minus the map in the infobox of the lead section). I hope all of these latest edits suffice! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 15:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks well-written. I read the lead carefully:
    • "For a brief period, his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world, the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Could that be: "For a brief period his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world – the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Placement of the dash (or pair of dashes) affects the meaning; currently, with just commas it's ambiguous.
    • "advances in philosophy, engineering, and science were spread throughout the ancient world"—Is "throughout" an overstatement?
    • "and even possessed democratic municipal governments"—does one "possess" a government?
    • "New cities were also founded"—is "also" needed? Tony (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tony1: hi Tony! Long time no see; I remember you reviewing more than one of my featured articles in the past. It's good to see that you're still around! Thanks for taking the time to review the lead section. I have decided to amend that section according to your suggestions. I did change "possessed democratic municipal governments" to "had democratic municipal governments," although I'm not quite sure if this change was necessary. The subject of this statement is "local governments", which I believe can possess things. Right? There are multiple definitions for the word "possess," one of them being "have as an ability, quality, or characteristic," as opposed to the more common definition: "have as belonging to one; to own," or "have possession of as distinct from ownership." I believe that my original intent in writing that sentence followed the first definition here. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Perecles, you're welcome. "while a few local governments within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had/possessed democratic municipal governments with popular assemblies" – I think simpler is better. But either way, it brings up something I didn't quite notice before: governments have governments? Perhaps it could be "a few local areas ... and even had governments with popular assemblies"? Tony (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tony1: ha! How did I not notice this before? I have reworded the sentence as follows: "The authority of Macedonian kings was theoretically limited by the institution of the army, while a few municipalities within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had democratic governments with popular assemblies." That's the most optimal solution, I think. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Support the sourcing, have not judged content. Source review - note that I haven't read the article itself. I reviewed this version. Gotta sweat some of the small stuff.

  • General comments
    • As with Sino-Roman relations, only the first place of publication listed on a book's title page is needed. See e.g. Chicago Manual of Style 14.135: "The place to be incuded is the one that usually appears on the title page but sometimes on the copyright page of the book cited—the city where the publisher's main editorial offices are located. Where two or more cities are given ("Chicago and London," for example, appears on the title page of the print edition of this manual), only the first normally included in the documentation."
    • I really don't like the use of ampersands. I can (begrudgingly) accept their use in individual citations for length reasons, but they should be replaced with "and" in the bibliography.
    • Given the quantity and length of some of your discursive footnotes, I'd recommend splitting them into a separate section. See WP:EXPLNOTE.
    • Should the Encyclopædia Britannica appear in further reading or external links? One, not both!
  • Citations
    • Why the full citations for Liddell and Scott in refs 9 and 10? Should be Liddell and Scott 1940.
    • You need to decide whether you're going to end all the citations with or without a period. ;-)
    • Ref 237 has a hanging semi-colon.
    • Not a fan of the quote in ref 266. I'd integrate it into the main article or put it into your own words. Same with ref 352 and 353. Note that it's not clear which ref covers the quote in 352.
    • "seems far less convinced" and "seems less convinced" read a little bit like OR, although I totally understand what you're trying to do there. I might suggest rewording to "Errington is more skeptical ..."
  • Sources section
    • E. J. Brill or Brill? Be consistent.
    • Ahmed's Chaghatai is from a self-published source.
    • Why are you citing a chapter by Bolman in a book written by Bolman? This should be cited in the usual style for books.
    • Is the 2002 edition of Bringmann in German? It's not coming up in Worldcat.
    • Chugg's Alexander's Lovers is by Lulu, a self-published source.
    • I'm not sure that A. Giuffrè was the editor of de Francisci's Arcana Imperii II? Worldcat has that as the publisher.
    • Hofmann's Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Griechischen - in German, I assume? Should be noted in the citation.
    • I wonder if there's a better source than Joseph, which appears to be the quasi-personal webspace for an OSU professor? If kept, you should standardize the citation to Joseph 2004 in ref 292.
    • Renault's The Nature of Alexander the Great ought to be cited to the original source. I'm not really doubting that Open Road Integrated Media messed with the text, assuming that the line "a focus on publishing ebook editions of older works of literature and nonfiction" in its Wikipedia article is accurate, but it really doesn't come across as reliable with a publisher like that. Full info is on Worldcat.
    • Why are you citing two different editions of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Pericles' reply

@The ed17: greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review this article as well as Sino-Roman relations, even after it's successful FAC. I've addressed each and every one of your points, with the sole exception of your quibble about quotations in the citations (now placed in a new "notes" section). However, I have removed one of quotations that you viewed as problematic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Per the Chicago Manual of Style and for that matter Harvard style, I have removed all the additional publication locations/cities.
  • I have removed all ampersands in the article that were not critical components to some of the URLs.
  • Encyclopædia Britannica now appears only in the "External links" section.
  • As I mentioned above, I have created a new "notes" ref group above citations for all those lengthy, discursive footnotes.
  • I fixed the inline citations from online sources, e.g. Liddell and Scott 1940.
  • All footnotes now contain uniform punctuation; feel free to point out any mistakes if they still exist. I'm pretty sure that I expunged every non-conforming, deviating instance of punctuation.
  • Changed "seems less convinced" to "is skeptical" per your suggestion.
  • Changed every instance of "E.J. Brill" to "Brill".
  • Chaghatai wasn't actually cited in the article, so that was simple enough to remove. I've also removed Chugg as you've suggested.
  • You are mistaken about Elizabeth Bolman. She is not the author of that book; she's the editor! It contains chapters written by various authors. She happens to be one of the authors writing some of the book chapters, not all of them.
  • Bringmann's 2002 publication must be in German. In either case the 2007 edition is in English. I simply forgot to add the translator's name (i.e. W.J. Smyth), which I have done a moment ago.
  • You're absolutely correct about A. Giuffrè being the publisher, not the editor. That was an honest mistake on my part, one that has now been fixed.
  • I have specified that Hofmann's book is in German.
  • I have fixed the online source citation for Joseph 2001. As for removing it, I'd like to see a second opinion on that. It's at least an academic source, i.e. a website hosted by an academic institution. It's also listed among other sources in that citation. If the citation relied on that single source, then perhaps it would be problematic. His opinion is at least supported by a few other authors who've had their books published by academic presses.
  • I have changed Renault's publication details as you've suggested.
  • Although I've removed the additional version of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader, it exists there as a remnant of how the article was before I conducted a massive removal and shift of material into the existing sub-article Ancient Macedonians and new sub-articles History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), per Wikipedia:Summary style.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the lengthy quotations in citations 266, 352, and 353, I've removed the first one and reworded the sentence in order to use my own words instead of a quotation. However, I'm keeping the quotations in 352 and 353 (after distinguishing which "Errington" source the quotation came from in citation 352). I don't see a problem with these, since they aren't incredibly lengthy, just single paragraphs each. It would be one thing if I quoted half of their books. Then we'd have a copyright issue. There are featured articles on Wikipedia, such as the one on Pericles, which utilize sizable quotations in the body of the article, let alone in the footnotes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems more like a pet peeve of yours than an actual Wiki guideline that must be followed. In either case, thanks once again for reviewing the article. I hope that you view my recent changes to the article as being satisfactory. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey PericlesofAthens, just a note that I've seen your reply and will return here asap. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: well, you can take your time, I think. This review doesn't seem to be going anywhere anyway. I remember the days of old (c. 2007-2011) when featured article candidates used to get 20 to 30 comments/supports/oppositions within a single week. Now the FAC page is something of a ghost town. Kinda spooky. And also very sad. --Pericles of AthensTalk 22:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: Times are changing, and not always for the better. :-/ Your changes look good. I've supported above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: thank you kindly for your support! Pericles of AthensTalk 19:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • tentative support - I like what I read - not seeing any glaring prose errors - the prose is good enough that I just slip into "reader" rather than "corrector" mode, which is a good sign. It appears comprehensive. I do wonder whether the History material is long compared with the rest of the material but then again, it is pretty convoluted. 85 kb of readable prose is pretty long, but I'm not hugely fussed by that. The only thing i'd definitely do is remove or drastically trim the see also section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: thanks for your support! I have followed your advice and removed about half of the links in the "See also" section. As noted above, the current size of the article has been reviewed by other active editors and a consensus has been reached that the prose size is appropriate. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but 85 kb is also a bit too high of an estimate since it includes the lead section. I just checked by doing the "page size" test, which always seems to include the lead section for some reason. The actual prose body is perhaps a bit closer to 80 KB in size. --Pericles of AthensTalk 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wipeout 2048[edit]

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

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

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

Comments on images:
  • File:Wipeout 2048 Boxart.jpg: The non-free use rationale is fairly basic; I think some more stuff can be added. And the rationale for the other page the file isn't used on removed.
  • Oops, I completely blanked that. I've added the proper video game rationale JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Wipeout 2048 gameplay.jpg: This file is being used to illustrate the gameplay not the game which is different. The current rationale would be appropriate if the file was used in the infobox header.
  • I've rephrased the rationale somewhat to make it clear that the image illustrates the gameplay of the game itself JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Verifying the fact that the game influenced the design of the console itself can be found in this source. Or did you mean verifying that the console pictured is the first model?
Good alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I think I should have cleared everything up, although I'm not that good with images. I wasn't too sure about the image of the PlayStation Vita—did you mean verifying the game's influence over the console or the fact that it was the first model in the picture? JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Please see the FAC instructions about when a nomination is archived. "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." My inclination is to remove this, but I don't recall you doing this before so would be prepared to grant an exemption this once. However, as this is the second time this has happened in a few days, I'm also inclined to be less willing to bend the rules in future. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I'm so sorry, I was aware of this rule but for some reason I always thought it only applied to nominating the same article in the space of two weeks, not a different article. I always had that in my mind ever since my FAC failed back in 2012. I would be fine if you decide to remove this, but it won't happen again. JAGUAR  17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments by User:Tintor2
  • Why aren't the other games from the franchise linked in the lead?
  • The only other game I'm seeing in the lead is Wipeout HD, which is already linked? Unless I'm missing something. JAGUAR  22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about starting the article with futuristic considering it's not a genre and instead something like "racing game set in the future"
  • Removed "futuristic" and made it more specific that the game is set in the year 2048. JAGUAR  22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The reception section seems quite long. How about trimming or make a smaller section for one aspect of critcism like Final Fantasy XIII#Linearity?
  • That's a very good idea! Never thought of that before. I did condense and trim and section as much as I could, but I'm not sure if trimming anymore would sacrifice its balance. I think its reception is important given the fact that it was a Vita launch title and it also gained more-than-usual limelight because of this. Let me know how it looks now? If it's still too long, I would try merging some sentences. JAGUAR  14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there information about the sales?
  • It is covered on VGChartz, but sadly this is not a reliable source. However, I did find a mention of the game being at the 11th spot in the UK all-format chart, so I've mentioned that. I think it's better than nothing! JAGUAR  14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some references needing archives like reference 20 "Hindman, Heath (14 February 2012). "WipEout 2048 review". Game Revolution. AtomicOnline. Retrieved 3 January 2017." It is needed for the source review.
  • Archived all with the exception of three which couldn't be archived. JAGUAR  15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Chris Roberts or other staff members could be in the infobox as director, designer, etc.
  • Good catch, added. JAGUAR  14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Good work. I'll support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you so much for the review, Tintor2! Just finished archiving. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. JAGUAR  15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I think that the infobox image requires an ALT description. And I would think that the ALT description for the screenshot should be a little more descriptive than "Game screenshot".
  • I've given better alt descriptions for all images, as well as the infobox image. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Something about this sentence reads a little awkwardly to me (Set primarily in the year 2048, it takes place earlier in the Wipeout timeline than previous games and acts as a prequel); I think it is because I find it a little repetitious. The parts about the game taking "place earlier in the Wipeout timeline" and it acting "as a prequel" seems to conveying the same information in two different ways in the same sentence. You could cut this sentence down by saying: "Set primarily in the year 2048, it acts as a prequel to the first installment in the Wipeout series" or something along those lines.
  • Thanks, I agree that it does sound repetitious. I went with your suggestion with a minor tweak. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, you give a good breakdown of the different car types, but do you have any information on the "prototype" car/ship. You include information on speed ships, agility ships, fighters, but not anything specifically for the prototype.
  • Sadly the source says "The last class of ship is the Prototype Ship, but I’m not going to tell you anything about those", and I was like, "oh, OK then". I have never played this game before so I wouldn't know, but I'll keep looking for a source which can shed some light on this. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. I just wanted to confirm this with you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phrase "destroy other races", I assume you mean "racers" and not "races" (unless this game gets real dark and existential lol).
  • Oops. Well spotted typo! That would have made the game unique. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Quick question about "Zone mode"; are the racers kept at a high speed for the entire race, or are they pushed to a high speed at the start, but can still be slowed down to more "normal" levels by obstacles or player interactions (weapons, etc.)?
  • All racers are kept at extreme speeds the whole time, and it continuously accelerates. The player has no control over the acceleration—I've split and expanded the sentence to make it clearer. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A link to "time trial" may be beneficial, though I am surprised that the article has not been expanded to include information on time trials in the context of video games. I am only suggesting it as it may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader.
  • The time trial article does include "a similar race against the clock or time attack is often part of racing video games", which is better than nothing. I've linked it for unfamiliar readers. Even so, it is always the same concept. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but is there anything noteworthy to add about the DLC? Did any publications provide any details on the types of new tracks or ships added?
  • I've added a little bit more to the DLC section, but it turns out that there are only two DLCs. Both of which just add twelve ships and twelve tracks from Wipeout HD to Wipeout 2048. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, this is a clarification question, and I am pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to make sure. I am assuming there is very little in the way of plot or character/racer background and development in this game (which is common for a racing game), but I just wanted to confirm this with you.
  • There is absolutely no plot or narrative with any Wipeout game LOL. It's funny that all of the video game FAs I've bought up have had no narratives. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It happens; I didn't even notice until you pointed it out lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I love using block quotes, but I am not entirely certain that the block quote at the beginning of the "Conception" subsection is entirely necessary or adds much to the actual article or reader's understanding of the material. I can see the quote being put into the actual text (with a direct quote or paraphrasing) rather than sectioning it off (in fact, the second sentence of the subsection seems to be repeating similar information to the block quote).
  • You're right, it doesn't add anything unique to the section. I wanted to include it because I thought it emphasised an important point, but I know realise that it repeats information. I've removed the quote box. I tried to find another quote to use but it all repeats the same information in the article. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You link "launch title" twice in the article.
  • Fixed. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Make sure the references are put in numerical order (for instance, in the last paragraph of the "Reception" section, reference 26 should be put before reference 27). Same thing in the beginning of the "Criticism of loading times" subsection.
  • All should be in order now. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wonderful work with this article. It has been a rather long time since I have played a racing game, so this article definitely made me want to play one lol. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Aoba47! I really appreciate it. I've addressed all of your points. The Wipeout series are the only racing games I'll ever play, and it's been a pleasure to get all of them to GA. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments, and I greatly enjoyed working with you. Good luck with your future projects, and I look forward to working with you further in the future. I support it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Source review by ProtoDrake

In progress. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Time[edit]

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

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

Comments from 1989

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I forgot to ping you. I fixed the issues you pointed out and also tried to improve the NFCC#8 rationale on another image.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the text in the image is not readable and while often that is not an issue, the NFCC rationale seems to say that it is important here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. However, I would also like to see more commentary on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c as I'm not sure we have quite covered how far the article meets these yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII[edit]

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

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

Comments from 1989

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

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

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

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

Comments. Looks pretty great, no real complaints about most of the sections. That said, A few questions, mostly on the plot / characters. Notably, I see some things sourced to Ultimania, which is always a little awkward... when Ultimania explicitly lays out something vaguely hinted at in-game, it's fine, but some Ultimanias are also known for having "writer headcanon" that never actually made it into the game. My *personal* stance would be to be skeptical of including Ultimania content that isn't referenced in-game, but this is admittedly weird because FF7 has a famously erratic English translation, so maybe some of this stuff was in the Japanese version? Who knows.

  • Cetra: I'll admit I'm misty on this because the game is misty on this, but they're a "human tribe"? The game sure acts like they're aliens, or a different species, or something, but FF7 is also a game where a lot of key characters are just flat wrong in their understanding of the Cetra/Jenova/Planet backstory (Hojo, Sephiroth), so who knows.
  • Reeve: I don't think his last name (Tuesti?) is ever mentioned in-game, and if it is, it has no relevance - basically trivia. I'd say remove it. Also, since when is he a Turk? Maybe the Compilation retconned him to be a Turk, but he never claims to be a Turk, never orders them around, etc. He's the Head of Urban Development who deals with all the Midgar infrastructure stuff in-game if you want to talk about his role.
  • Sephiroth's mother: I realize that you need to keep this short, and that Sephiroth *thinks* Jenova is his mother, but Sephiroth is wrong about this! Lucrecia plot is pretty minor and basically a footnote in-game, but if you're going to include it, something like "In an experiment at Nibelheim, an infant Sephiroth was infused with Jenova cells by Shinra scientists Hojo and Lucrecia, his parents."
  • "Cloud became an infantryman" - Maybe sneak in "low-ranking" in there, or some even less flattering term? He's an MP, basically a rent-a-cop on the prestige scale.
  • Localization: Is Aeris vs. Aerith really an example of a "disconnect" / mistake? It's not uncommon for localizations to entirely invent different names that aren't even close to the original, so it could easily have been an intentional choice (that was later overruled). What did the source say on it? SnowFire (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SnowFire: Thanks for the shoutout about Reeve. Cetra are treated as a distinct tribe, that's true, but it's never specified that they're not just a tribe of humans. I've removed the addition about Jenova being Sephiroth's "mother", which isn't really here or there when communicating the story to series newcomers. Most of the points above are non-essential to communicating the narrative. As to Cloud, it's just the fact that he was lying to himself that's important, not exact circumstances. As to your final point, it is explicitly described as a result of a lack of adequate communication. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the fact that Cloud had "failed" but succeeded anyway is reasonably important - that he wasn't a big fancy elite SOLDIER but a grunt. I think "infantryman" still has too much prestige / honor to a casual reader and might read as someone expected to be competent. So my suggestion is adding "low-ranking" if you can't find a good synonym (admittedly, I can't, aside from using "MP" which is also misleading). If you really feel it reads better without it, you can keep it, but I still don't quite like it.
For communication: Checking the source, I'm not really sure the current passage accurately reflects the interview. It's conflating "lack of communication between JP team and international team" with "Aeris doesn't reflect Air+Earth, but Aerith somehow does," and the 2nd part is definitely not in the interview (Honeywell randomly muses "Earith" as a possibility). Maybe move to the "Legacy" section that some later versions changed the official localization from Aeris->Aerith, and cut that bit from "Localization"? SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SnowFire: I've conceded on the point about Cloud. But the fact of Aerith's name shifting with later translations seems too trifling for the game's "Legacy" section, whereas the fact the original translation happened denotes how challenging the localization was. I've rephrased it slightly to better reflect the source's text. Aerith's own article is a better place for that, and does actually go into it there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • LGTM. Support. The only thing I'd add is that the list of awards won / mentions on best-ever lists borders on the excessive, and for 99% of articles I'd suggest chopping the list of awards a tad or moving them to a footnote, but FF7 might be a rare case where it's mostly justified, since I'm sure lots of best-ever mentions are already being excluded. It's still a little long, but not indefensible or anything. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need image and source reviews, unless I've missed them. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Evita (1996 film)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an image review:

There thankfully are no glaring concerns that I can find. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that the Stone caption has thankfully been trimmed. Let me know when the other concerns are addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Some updates: I replaced File:Evita color.jpg since I could not find any details regarding the original author. I could remove the image File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg if the file source is a concern. FrankRizzo (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
File:Eva Perón Retrato Oficial.jpg definitely was a good substitute to include as all publication details are known. As for the Alan Parker image, it would probably be best to remove if no other file source can be found. Feel free to also replace it with another image of him with a more accessible file source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS:, OTRS is an extremely reliable way of accepting content in Wikipedia. File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg has actually been verified by an admin or a trusted reviewer in Commons, hence the OTRS tag is added. —IB [ Poke ] 03:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, scratch my previous comment about removing the Alan Parker pic; it can stay. I'm still not sure if the Casa Rosada Buenos Aires photo has much (if any) benefit, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS:, it was I who had added it. My reason was that the Casa was an important portion for the filming of this movie, and there's much written about how they obtained permission, key sequences like Eva's "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" etc all being shot there, as well as a poignant locale all through out the film. Hence, unlike picture of any other filming location, I thought that the Casa would actually aid reader's understanding of the article and they would benefit in knowing how the Casa looked like. I'm ambivalent towards its keeping or removal, you can suggest either but just wanted to let you know my reasoning for adding the image. —IB [ Poke ] 05:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
OK that helps. Seeing no further issues in the article, I now can gladly support for FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Snuggums, can I clarify: is your support for the article overall or purely from an image perspective? Tks/cheers, 11:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's both as I couldn't find any further concerns outside of image comments Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Tks for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review for formatting and reliability (concerns addressed)

  • Ref 8 lacks publisher.
  • There are instances of WP:SHOUTING in titles of source 9, 11.
  • Every publisher should be (or that is practiced here, well almost) linked to its respective page at the time of its first occurrence (e.g. Newsweek should not be linked further in ref 13 and The Independent should be linked in ref 40). These two are just examples so go through each source to spot the other inconsistencies.
  • Ref 19 - same case as 8.
  • I don't understand the purpose of Nixon in ref 20.
  • Ref 61 has no publisher.
  • Ref 68 - "Weekend Box Office Results for January 17–20, 1997 – Box Office Mojo" - the name of the website can go. Same with ref 92.
  • The publisher of ref 93 should be called Golden Globe Awards. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. Abovementioned concerns regarding sources have been addressed as per my previoua edit to the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Source 14 lacks publication date.
  • I am not sure how reliable is Awards & Winners as a reference. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Added publication date, and replaced source in previous edits.FrankRizzo (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @FrB.TG: does the reference formatting look fine to you now? —IB [ Poke ] 15:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- I was originally going to just tweak a word or two but then decided to do a more somewhat more extensive copyedit, so will recuse from coord duties now. Pls let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Hills, Bogotá[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Oppose (for now at least). There are an excessive number of images (and too many galleries), many of which are forced into sections which creates large area of white space. There are a lot of out-sized images and too much sandwiched text between two images.
In terms of the sources, there is no need to have so much capitalisation in the names or titles, and you need to ensure the formatting of the references is consistent (There are examples of p.1 and p. 1 and some page ranges that are p, not pp. - The Bounder (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Just popping back to see progress on this. Although there have been great strides in sorting out some of the images, I see that there are still too many of them, and a number of those that remain have the sizes forced to 350px, which is against the MoS guidelines. Pushing the guidelines isn't a problem in itself, but it's forcing large areas of white space into the article and dominating the page, even on a wide monitor. I strongly suggest you read through MOS:IMGSIZE and act accordingly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The images are there to inform and highlight the text. The quality of a Featured Article depends on the information, the amount of sources and the informational level of the article. Where do you see "white spaces"? I have deliberately scaled everything to the text. "there are too many images" is a personal flavour, not an in-depth review of an article where clearly a lot of work is put in. I follow the guidelines and additional to that have an own style, something that is perfectly accepted in Wikipedia as many articles have slightly different styles and wordings, use of lay-out, images, tables, etc. Personal flavours not directed towards the content of an article are not relevant remarks. If you don't like images, you can avoid looking at them. But there are many people around who do like images and are much more visually than textually focused. Those people profit from the images and would be denied service by forcifully removing them to accommodate a "desire" by people who don't have any interest in them anyway. The image sizes are important too; the majority of images in my opinion are too small, certainly for readers with less eye-sight (not me, I write for others). They are served with larger images, showing more clearly what is the illustration of the text. Those people again would be denied service if images are scaled down. If you have an in-depth review of the article, I am all ears. But if an article of this size, quality, completeness and full referencing using many online accessible sources would "FAIL" a FA review, then so be it. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tisquesusa, Please don't think I'm attacking you or the article, but these are valid concerns. Point 3 of the FA criteria is that "Images follow the image use policy", of which sizing is one element. That's not "personal flavour", or even just a guideline: it's policy. It's fine for you to say that you "have deliberately scaled everything to the text", but that scaling goes entirely out of the window when the page is viewed on a browser of a different size, and there are very large areas of white space when I view the article. If you choose to ignore the policy and not to address the size problem, that is up to you, but my oppose will stand because if it. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

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

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

  • I made quite a few minor copyediting changes today. Feel free to revert any that you think are mistakes. I will probably have more, but I'm getting too cross-eyed to continue just now. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I made a few more minor edits today, and I will now wait to see what other editors have to say and what you decide to do about layout and alt text for readers who cannot see the images. I don't know what to suggest about the collapsing templates. In my own writing for Wikipedia, I've relied on using existing templates that look good to me rather than creating my own. Template:History of Egypt looks good to me, for example, and this form could be used across a related series of articles related to the Muisca. WP:Template namespace has ideas, guidelines. What you have done already is well-researched and very interesting. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Finetooth, I have expanded the Climate section to solve the ugly white space that was there, adding a reference too. I've removed the large Muisca history template that is less relevant for the Hills and too extensive to show up in the mobile version. The timeline of inhabitation is important and more concised so I think that one showing up expanded (I've raised that issue in another discussion) on the mobile version shouldn't be a big problem. The only images that are now spanning the page are the forest fires, but they are important to highlight the constant (yearly) threat to the hills, the people living on the slopes of them and the way they are treated (thanks for the Bamby Bucket link!). I've added all the rivers that were red links and all the geologic formations in equally extensively referenced articles (I don't do stubs). The remaining red links of the Reservoirs, Earthquakes, Bogotá Fault and Suba Hills are in preparation. I've selected other images of the flora and fauna (the white-tailed deer was a subspecies from the US) and expanded on the captions to highlight the importance and in my view captions should be interesting to read too, not just "this is X", that is obvious from the image itself. What do you think of the article as it stands now? Cheers and thanks, talk) 02:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll wait to see what other editors have to say lest I get too involved in pushing you one way or another. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tisquesusa: Seeing your continuing struggles, I assume that there must be some basic misunderstanding of what we mean by "white space". We are not talking about spaces between the images on the right but rather about the huge spaces between sections of the text. For example, the distance between the last sentence of the Etymology subsection and the first sentence of the Geography section is (on my desktop screen) six inches, according to a ruler I keep in my desk. Instead of the usual continuation of the text, what I see is a blank space of about 50 square inches. There are similar blank spaces lower down in the article. I don't believe it's possible to fix this problem without removing more images. Every reviewer who looks at the article instantly sees this problem, and reviewers might well choose to go no further. This is a shame since the article in other respects has FA potential. Finetooth (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Finetooth: Ah, thanks, now I understand better what you mean. It must be some setting with your browser, or Wikipedia settings as it is the {{clearboth}} template which should work fine, that's what's intended for. I use that to get the next chapter below the images in case they extend the section. In the case of "Etymology" there was no issue. But if there are more instances of that, let me know, I removed the "Etymology" one. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth

  • As someone who likes to use images, I'm all for it, but it's possible to go overboard. That said, I love your images, although I can't read the text because the images distract me. :( I'd make a few suggestions. First, regarding the images: I'd suggest trying to incorporate them more textually--that is, switch them back and forth (left side/right side) to see if that reduces white space (white space=bad). Also, I'd use one of each, not multiples. I'd really make a concerted effort to categorize and subcategorize these images in commons so you can link to them via the commonscat box. This would make it easier for the ignorant but curious like myself to find them.
  • Second point: I like the writing and it flows beautifully. There are some textual inconsistencies, one of which is this: are the white tailed deer extinct or not? If they are, they cannot be a dietary staple. If they are a dietary staple, they are obviously not extinct.Also shot dead=killed.
  • Third, are there actually "sub" articles on these subjects? If there are, then you can expand much of your excellent descriptive work in those, with the images, and use the overlaying article to summarize those ideas. Just a thought.

Finally, also a thought: you use a lot of the verb "to be" when you could use some far more interesting verbs. Also, one last comment, I am one of those with a browser/settings (unexplained) that used to but no longer will expand collapsible tables.  :( auntieruth (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

sources okay. I use Earwigs program to check paraphrasing etc. had the most common text

Hi @Auntieruth55:, thank you for your review and comments.
  • I have rescaled the images using the upright parameter, so it should be ok with your image setting
  • I don't see white spaces left, if you do, could you post a screenshot where they are? I checked both on my laptop with 1920 resolution and on my phone (desktop version of wiki).
  • I chose to position all the images to the right and all the text to the left deliberately; those who want to see the images and the captions check for the right and those who don't want images can read the text without """disturbing""" images to the left.
  • most of the articles in the subpages have been either written by me or checked against my high standards. There shouldn't be any pages with issues left under the many blue links added to the article. If you spot one, please let me know on this page and I will work on it
  • as a non-native speaker it could be my English with "to be" is too boring and may be improved with -as you say- "far more interesting verbs". If you want, please edit the article where you see fit or suggest individual improvements here.
  • there should be only 1 collapsed table (the template) left, which I think is crucial to guide the reader to the history of the area. If it causes major problems, please post a screenshot to let me know.
  • I noticed just now the coord template screws up the lay-out of the article completely, I don't know what's happening, but it seems to be outside of my realm. This is what I get: screenshot. I hope it will be solved soon or if I can do it and that we can pass the article to FA. I've reread the text and reworded for clarification. All the geologic formations have been added and described with extensive bibliography and references, the missing links will be added soon too. One or two remaining red links should show Wikipedia "is not finished" and be inviting readers to add their interests and/or knowledge to the specific articles.

Thanks again and good night, Tisquesusa (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I did a light once over on the section with the animals here There were incomplete sentences, and a few other problems. See if that works for you.
  • The problem with white spaces hasn't gone away. I have no idea what to do with it. Although it is distracting. Let me know about this edit, and possibly I'll tackle some more. As a non-native speaker/writer, you do very well! auntieruth (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: I checked with my own resolution (1920x1080) and the screen resolutions 1366x768, 1280x800 and 1024x768 and no white spaces appear apart from the rivers that should now be solved with the inclusion of the map in the table. In which section do you see white spaces still? Can you post a screenshot? Tisquesusa (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Comments Support

  • "Gameplay, as in most real-time strategy titles, is focused on gathering resources, building a fleet, and using it to destroy enemy ships and accomplish an objective." - Since you're talking about the genre overall, I think it would be more accurate to say 'building an army' or 'building military forces' than "building a fleet" and similarly 'destroying enemy forces' as opposed to ships. Most RTS have armies, i'd day half at most have space ships.
  • There's a noticeable absence of wikilinks in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of gameplay. I see wikilink opportunities at "ballistic guns, beam weapons, and missiles".
  • "As a ship is damaged by weapons its health bar depletes, then visual effects such as fire and smoke are added, and it can eventually explode." What needs to happen for it to 'eventually' explode? Complete depletion of health bar or being on fire for a period? The wording doesn't make this clear to a non-gamer. How about something like, 'as the health bar depletes visual effect such as fire and smoke appear, and the ship will explode if the bar is depleted'?
  • I assumed that video game plots required sources, but after looking through about a dozen current video game FAs only every second one appeared to have sources. Nevertheless, are you able to help readers by throwing a couple in there for key aspects?
  • "Relic spent effort on making high-quality ship models" - spent effort seems a bit redundant here, I mean, everything requires effort. Are you trying to say something like they spend considerable effort?
  • Not an FAC requirement, but an image from the remastered edition would be nice, assuming that on such small resolution image there would be a noticeable improvement in graphics quality. Even better would be a side by side comparison.
That's all I found. Well done on the article. Very impressive. Never actually played this one before. Think I might have to go download the remastered version off Steam now. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Sorry for taking so long to get to this!
  • Done
  • Added a few
  • Tweaks slightly differently to make it clear that a number of things happen as a ship is increasingly damaged, which include fire and explosions
  • Yeah, plot sections for games (and media in general) are implicitly sourced to the work itself. That said, quotes are nice, so adding a bunch.
  • Done.
  • Added one down in remaster; got one that's similar to the original screenshot.
All done. --19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Supporting. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • support well-written, great coverage. all around great article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • This may be more of a personal preference, but I would recommend moving the screenshot in the "Gameplay" section to the left as there is some interference between it and the infobox in some views (where the infobox pushes the image down the page slightly).
  • The infobox image requires an ALT description.
  • When referencing the Star Wars influence, do you think you should clarify that it was influenced by the original trilogy? It is obvious from the context of the game's release date, but I always think it is better to be safe (especially since you clarified the BSG as the original series and not the re-imagined version).
  • Wonderful work with this article. Once my brief comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Done, done, and done. I had it as just "Star Wars" since they were inspired by the 70s films and also the 1997 Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, but I explicitly mention that game a few sentences later so I might as well be explicit about the films as well, as there's no indication in sources that they were notably inspired by any other pieces of Star Wars media. --PresN 03:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Thank you for addressing my comments and wonderful work with this article! I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my FAC if possible? Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • An image review has been asked for. Lead image is fine, but how many of the other images are needed to illustrate the style? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I originally thought just the one for the original gameplay (in Gameplay) and one for the cutscene style, since it was quite different (in plot), but @Aoba47: above requested another one to demonstrate the graphical changes in the remake. Do you think one needs to be cut? I'd likely cut the cutscene one first. --PresN 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    It probably needs more distinct non-free use rationales. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review unless I missed one somewhere. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested a week ago alongside the image review. Will ping WP:VG if no one gets to it this weekend. --PresN 21:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

CMLL World Lightweight Championship[edit]

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

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

Oppose on prose

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

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

why is over-all hyphenated under the infobox image?
... series of very well-received matches... - is the "very" necessary here?
(Havana Brother I, Havana Brother II and Havana Brother I) - should that be I, II and III?
In the subsequent year the championship was not defended, nor referred to by CMLL. - either "following year" or "subsequent years"
The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); --> "The championship was originally a "Super Lightweight" championship, which in Lucha Libre is for competitors' between 70 kg (150 lb) and 73 kg (161 lb); " (also needed in the sentence following)

Otherwise...reads alright,a fun little read :) I don't see any glaring omissions, though I am not familiar with the subject matter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Casliber thank you for your input, I truely appreciate it. I have addressed all your comments.  MPJ-DK  12:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
MPJ-DK there is one query still left above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
casliber - That is a great catch, I read it three times before I saw the issue. Fixed it.  MPJ-DK  01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok....ok then all good. Can't see any glaring prose issues outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Máscara-Dorada.jpg: Free image on Commons. Uploader had some uploads removed for copyvio and while the EXIF is clean unlike the previous ones, the image appears at higher resolution on the web, but I am not sure if it's simply scaled up.
  • File:Ricky Marvin.jpg: Free Flickr image, good EXIF. Pertinent to the section.
  • File:Rocky Romero.jpg: Free Flickr image with only basilar EXIF. Pertinent to the section.

Basic but OK Alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus and "basic but okay" describes a lot of my work ;-)  MPJ-DK  01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support

  • Background: "the title change was only made public when they promoted a rematch between Williams and Romero." Who is "they"? I can't tell whether it's CMLL or some previously unnamed independent circuit.
  • Clarified that it was the local promotion, it was so obsure I could not even find an official name for it.
  • In one of the notes for Vacated in the table, shouldn't "moves up to the middleweight division" be "moved up to the middleweight division"?
  • FIxed
  • List of combined reigns: You use the color for Ricky Marvin, but not Virus, when both wrestlers had reigns of uncertain duration. Consider adding the color for Virus as well.
  • Good catch, I added the color
  • The all-caps "JAPAN" in ref 2 needs fixing.
  • Fixed
  • Are page numbers possible for refs 2 and 8? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Ref 2 is one page, ref 8 is the range that covers all CMLL/EMLL championships.
  • Giants2008 - I think I have addressed all issues you identified??  MPJ-DK  00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Casablanca (film)[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film

I am nominating this featured article for review because it contains unreferenced content and the structure seems problematic - some sections could be merged ("Rumors", "Errors and inaccuracies", both sound like renamed trivia sections), while the expected 'significance and impact' section is entirely missing. Further, while prose quality is not my forte, I detect editorializing (ex. "Particularly notable is the "duel of the songs" between Strasser and Laszlo at Rick's cafe" - particularly notable according to whom?), and 'Quotations' section seems like a wikiquote-artifact. There are also expected minor problems with inconsistent citation styles and at least two books donn't cite page range (Eco (1986) and Eco (1994)). Last week I reported those problems to Talk:Casablanca_(film)#Not_up_to_modern_FA_standards, pinging editors who are still active and who formerly participated at FA-related discussions for this article. Since nobody even so much as replied there, I am forced to escalate to here, since it seems unlikely anyone is interested in fixing those problems. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal[edit]

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Noticeboard for India-related topics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is suffused with unsourced weasel words like "prominent", "prefer", "major", "well-known", "rare", "finest", "dominated", etc. and requires extensive copyediting. On just a quick scan, I can see spaces missing after punctuation, use of ampersands in flowing text, and short stubby paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll try to check/address the issues mentioned here. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello! Thanks for bringing this article to FARC. I was the nominator of FAC of this article, and thereafter did try to maintain its quality, of course with the help of other editors. However, the article has been neglected for quite a while now. It will be excellent if this FARC process is continued beyond May 15 (I am hoping for some free time in real life after that date). With the help of other editors, we can surely save this FA! Thanks, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Comments This page does need some work but here are a few suggestions:
  • "91 million inhabitants"... as of when?
  • "making it similar in size to Serbia" is this a good comparison? Wouldn't it be better to compare it to other states in India?
  • " has borders with five Indian states" should be "borders five Indian states"
  • "West Bengal is the sixth-largest contributor" ... largest contributing state?
  • "It is noted for its cultural activities and the presence of cultural and educational institutions"... I don't know what this means specifically.
  • "stalwarts in literature"... I'm not sure that is the correct use of that word.
  • "to scores of musicians, film-makers and artists"... can't this be said for any state? What makes this state unique in this respect?
  • "playing association football besides cricket, the national favourite sport." This sentence is needlessly passive and can be rewritten to be more readable.
  • That's just my comments on the lead, have not had time to delve into the article itself. Mattximus (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

Notified: M

The main editor has an admitted COI, self-mitigated by "Citing yourself", placing the burden of proof on the reviewer. Two issues here; the afore mentioned COI, which I am uncomfortable with prima facie.

Second, many of the sources presented here do not seem to pass the RS test; Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder, etc. Ceoil (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not meet the requisite attempt to resolve this on the article talk page. Your first paragraph lacks clear wording and explanations and thus I can't decode it. As for sources, see the article talk. This discussion should happen there per WP:FAR, until disputes completely fail to be resolved. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave you two weeks in a charitable view (current FAC), two months in a less charitable view (last FAC), on a remarkably similar, Briarcliff related, topic. I have been stonewalled especially in the last two weeks, with an utter lack of concern for sources on your behalf, which you have defend via mis-characterisation and beligerance. That tells me three things:

  • (1) You don't have a leg to stand here on substance
  • (2) Your earlier nominations need further examination
  • (3) Your attitude is not helpful to the FAC process Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I had a significant amount of patience for you as well, which eventually drained out. I feel like many of your recent complaints are griefing, and I don't understand how you think multiple reviewers supporting an FA could possibly warrant a significant look or overhaul. And your attitudes haven't been helpful to these processes either. Once you or others seriously present problems with my sources, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please answear the basic questions rather than deflect via personalised tangents. This is about criteria and standards. My specific issues are clear enough, in almost bullet format. Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll state again, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine, whatever. As per your current FAC.

What makes these reliable sources

  • Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee
  • Village of Briarcliff Manor
  • Caltone Color Graphics Inc
  • Village of Briarcliff Manor
  • Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch
  • American FactFinder.
I hope this third time (on this page) is clear enough for your particular brain. Now please, address. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that you don't understand, or want to ignore even the basics of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also you are citing your own lack of diligence in the past[14][15] in an article that barely scraped through, as reason why we should all just forget Verification now. That's concentric; I don't believe for a second that you are not behind many of these sources. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
As an additional point; the Briarcliff articles are puffed up with triviality that no one but a local paper writer could give a damn about; opening times, parking rights, civil servant numbers on a Wednesday, anti-virus update schedules, etc...nonsense that has been fought tooth and nail over here. Many vastly better local history articles are out there; and typically the weakest editors always cry 'but that other rubbish page got through, so why cant I'. This is about both that "because", and because you cant go off and write factoids in a 12 page local rag and then use it for an FAC, all shucks. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring all of your baseless personal attacks that largely make no sense, you should know that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Within the context that I use any source, I find the sources to be appropriate. That is why, for a third time, DON'T just bullet which sources you aren't sure you can trust. You have to be smart about your issues with this. Read about the first basic things about FactFinder and you'd feel silly putting it up there. Read which sources I use to support which information and you'll better understand. Read the prior FACs, where people question some of those sources and I already gave them sufficient answers. I'm not wasting time doing all that explaining over again, especially if you don't give me serious questions about an individual source and why it should or shouldn't be used over another source in that particular context. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the onus is on you. But its out of our hands now. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Citation needed. If you have actual concerns to be serious with this FA Review, you'd pose specific relevant questions here. I'm under no obligation, and it would be far more difficult to generally answer when you could just give specific inquiries, if you have any. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator is also the undisclosed author of a significant number of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a trainwreck of personal interactions gone wrong here that I do not understand, but I don't think there is any evidence at all that Ɱ wrote the cited sources. Ɱ has a passionate interest in local history, clearly, as most of us are passionate on something or other, and it's true passion sometimes misguides article writers, but it's also clear Ɱ's interest in these types of articles is genuine, not a COI. Maybe both parties should consider giving a break to the remarkably rapid-fire edits and replies of today, and give it some breathing space before returning to the topic.--Pharos (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello, I am a member of Wikimedia New York City. WMNYC is not an organization with any authority, but as a community group, sometimes the organization does try to mediate tense situations. I have messaged both Ceoil and Ɱ. Both users agreed to a voluntary interaction ban, which means that each of these two users should halt their conversation. I will talk to both users and help resolve the situation. If for whatever reason anyone wishes to have another mediator, then I can help find one at WMNYC or elsewhere on wiki.
This discussion has included criticism of the article, which is good, and personal questioning about conflict of interest, which is also good. As a mediator I cannot sort all of these things, but I can say that the Briarcliff Library among others in Westchester county has hosted regional Wikimedia events. COI is a complicated issue, but in the traditional understanding of the concept as a financial relationship, there is no COI in this case. No organization in the area pays Ɱ or anyone else to do wiki, nor is any organization publishing content from Ɱ or anyone else for citing to Wikipedia.
I think that Ceoil is justified in questioning whether sources are reliable, as this is part of the review process. Talking through the questioned sources would be helpful. For example, one of the cited sources is a book published by "Caltone Color Graphics Inc", which by its name seems like a vanity publisher. Acknowledging anything unorthodox about the listed sources would be a good way to invite other reviewers to advance the conversation. ::In the FAR process it is customary to try to address all issues which anyone raises. Even through the tension I still would like to see every concern addressed. In the end I would like for for other reviewers to see Ceoil's questions matched with answers that make sense and leave other disagreements aside. If anyone wants to talk to me about either posting questions or answers in a friendly way, then post to my talk page or email me, but otherwise please M and Ceoil pause on communicating directly to each other. Thanks. M, can you take the next step and talk through sources which you recognize as lower quality? Perhaps post this on the article's talk page outside the context of this review, and for anyone who might check the talk page at any time in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, am I missing something here? Did the nominator create this FAR on the 8th, then add on the FARC section themselves the following day? That's, uh... not how this works. Pinging @WP:FAR coordinators: . --PresN 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I've removed the header and your delist declaration for now - we usually give much more than a day before moving to declarations. For this first stage let's focus on actionable comments relative to the FA criteria, on all sides. Note in particular that reliability of sourcing is a valid thing to be evaluated, but personal attitudes are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok Nikki. I have given a commitment to disengage, which is really for the best (thank you Blue Rasberry for stepping in, and I agree with, or accept, everything you said above); this all got personalised real fast, on both sides, and will go with whatever is decided here for this article, provided there is diligence, and adequate response. Ceoil (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi just letting people know I have been away, and have been mostly away from computers, which will likely continue to be until the 24th. I'll be able to give a complete response then. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Bluerasberry's thoughts, please see Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York#Sources for answers about the contested sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Frank Zappa[edit]

Notified: Frank Zappa

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it subverts several points in the criteria for featured articles (and because an attempt to address these issues was swiftly reverted)

  • Inappropriate structure Similar articles like Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson follow a logical structure which applies a division between "Biographical" and "Analytical" content. The bulk of the first sections ("Biographical") focuses on specific biographical detail, going from childhood to major career developments. The next sections ("Analytical") elaborate on the subject's personal beliefs, music style, legacy, etc. which are more general and apply to the subject's output, philosophy, and historical standing, not really the events of the subject's life.
Not only does Frank Zappa clutter these two aspects together in a very unfocused "oh by the way" fashion, it does so in spite of two already-existing "Personal views" and "Musical style" sections. Here are several excerpts that should be moved out to those sections:
  • (Religious views)

    Zappa recalled his parents being "pretty religious" and trying to make him go to Catholic school despite his resentment. He felt disgust towards organized religion (Christianity in particular) because he believed that it promoted ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

  • (Musical ethos)

    Zappa grew up influenced by avant-garde composers such as Varèse, Igor Stravinsky, and Anton Webern; 1950's blues artists Guitar Slim, Johnny Guitar Watson, and B.B. King;[22] R&B and doo-wop groups (particularly local pachuco groups); and modern jazz. His own heterogeneous ethnic background, and the diverse social and cultural mix in and around greater Los Angeles, were crucial in the formation of Zappa as a practitioner of underground music and of his later distrustful and openly critical attitude towards "mainstream" social, political and musical movements. He frequently lampooned musical fads like psychedelia, rock opera and disco. Television also exerted a strong influence, as demonstrated by quotations from show themes and advertising jingles found in his later works. ... Examples are "Plastic People" and "Brown Shoes Don't Make It", which contained lyrics critical of the hypocrisy and conformity of American society, but also of the counterculture of the 1960s. ... Nasal imagery and references appear in his music and lyrics, as well as in the collage album covers created by his long-time collaborator Cal Schenkel. ... [he] later acknowledged two of his music teachers on the sleeve of the 1966 album Freak Out! ...

Among reliable sources, there is so much detail regarding the themes, motifs, and idiosyncrasies of Zappa's work and philosophy that it would not be out of the question to have a separate article devoted to it, a la Musicianship of Brian Wilson. Although I'm not sure such action has to be taken, it should definitely be considered somewhere down the line.
  • Inconsistent citations Article has a mixture of {{cite book}}, {{sfn}} and manual harv cites, which I believe should all be converted to {{sfn}}, per its superior functionality.
  • Improperly placed non-free media Too many arbitrary sound clips with unclear significance.
  • Length of section headers The way it assigns yearly periods within yearly periods is overkill. "1973–75: Top 10 album" should be simplified to "Top 10 album", or better yet, "Apostrophe (')", the name of that top 10 album.

Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@DVdm, Ilovetopaint, Herostratus, Mrmoustache14, Friginator, Doc2234, A13ean, BenStein69, Kingflurkel, and The Gnome: Pinging members of the WikiProject and active users of the article's talk page. The FAR coordinators would appreciate more opinions on whether the article meets the featured article criteria. It would be useful for users to either declare "Move to FARC" if the article does not meet the criteria in their opinion or "Close without FARC" if it does, with a brief comment explaining their declaration. Many thanks, DrKay (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)[edit]

Notified: Ssven2

I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


I have been through the last version with the tainted sources, and it seems that all the information that was being referenced using the books has either been reworked or has been furnished with newer and more reliable sources. I have been through every word of the Madras Musings source that has been (majorly) used to replace the old sources, and can say with complete assurance that it substantiates every piece of information that it needs to. Will go through the entire article as a whole again, but this is impressive work so far. It's not an easy job to look up sources for an Indian multi-lingual lost film, but Kailash here does remarkably well and I commend him for that. NumerounovedantTalk 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Close without FARC -- I've been going though the sourcing since the last one hour. Given the film's period and availability, i find this article remarkable even now. Despite the removal of Dhananjayan's books, the article still is comprehensive and focused. I reiterate that my decision is purely unbiased and is to the best of my knowledge. I add that i don't have any issues with the nominators which could influence me to take this decision. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Western Front (World War I)[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired


Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been 11 years since its promotion, and it is currently tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur
  • The Schlieffen Plan section is obsolete.
  • The use of Mustard gas has it that it was fired in the first gas shells, rather than it was fired in gas shells for the first time on 10 July at Nieuport. Operation Strandfest Done
  • Most of the battle sections are too big now that so many more have decent articles.
  • The consequences section lacks nuance.
  • The prose is too bitty in places with paragraphs of inconsistent length.
  • Some of the pics, maps, etc could do with moving to avoid cluttering.

I don't think that it's a bad article but perhaps needs a spring-clean to take in later accounts and analyses. Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I note that it lacks a 'Prelude' to put this in context. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Done
I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books. Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further? Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thank you for the work done so far; still tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)