Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article 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—Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured portals Featured topics Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox Disambig links Edit count External links Alt text 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. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. 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.

Nominations

Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) and Thoughtfortheday (talk · contribs) Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a very early cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, who supplied a wealth of them later in life. The extraordinary work remained his only extant cantata for the First Day of Easter, as if his first statement to the battle of Life and Death, based on the unchanged hymn by Martin Luther (based on Medieval models) was final. Read yourself ...

Thoughtfortheday and I worked on an article from Wikipedia's early years for a while, Corinne copy-edited, to have it ready to appear on Easter Sunday. All comments and improvements welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm Not Your Hero

Nominator(s): 和DITOREtails 02:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"I'm Not Your Hero" is a song by Tegan and Sara off there critically-acclaimed Heartthrob. It did moderately on the Canadian and French charts. Writers who have reviewed the article have noticed its significant amount of effort that I put into this. I feel every bit of information necessary to this topic is included, and the writing is also great. Any comments are welcomed. 和DITOREtails 02:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Adam Stansfield

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Adam Stansfield, who was an English professional footballer. A late starter into the professional team, he played for Yeovil Town, Hereford United and Exeter City, gaining promotion into the Football League at all three teams. He was idolised as an elder statesman at Exeter, who gained a second promotion with him in the team. Tragically, he fell gravely ill in April 2010 and four months later he had passed on. His legend remains, particularly at Exeter.

The article went through a GA and peer review, both of which were thorough. The PR reviewer was an American who noted the accessibility of the article from a global perspective, in that it was not delving into walls of minutiae. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Imperial Gift

Nominator(s): Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the post-WW1 donation of surplus aircraft and related equipment by the British government to the governments of Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and New Zealand in order to enhance aviation in the respective Dominions and contribute to the air defence of the British Empire. This article should be a FA because the events described in it led to the establishment of Air Forces in four of the recipient countries, thus it is highly significant in aviation and military history. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Murray

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent Anglo-Indian Egyptologist, archaeologist, and folklorist, known for being one of the earliest female scholars in her subject matter and for establishing the controversial witch-cult theory. It is a GA-rated article and although a recent Peer Review Nomination did not result in any review, I have read through the article to correct any prose issues that were apparent. I think that it is either FA quality, or very close, and thus would like to nominate the article here to see if others concur with my assessment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)

Nominator(s): — Tom^(T2ME) 20:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a 2007 song by Barbadian singer Rihanna. It is one of her most successful and signature singles of her career. I hope this FAC is gonna be successful because the previous one lacked activity and got some points over the prose which were hopefully fixed since the article got and full c/e from Miniapolis and a slight help from Fdssdf to whom I am truly grateful. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Persona (series)

Participation Guide
Support
ProtoDrake (nominator)
Comments/No vote
Oppose

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Persona series, formally marketed overseas as Shin Megami Tensei: Persona is a role-playing video game series developed by Atlus as a branch of the Megami Tensei franchise. Beginning in 1996 with the first Persona title, the series consists of six main entries, multiple spin-offs, and various media expansions including manga, anime, novels and stageplays. While a spin-off from Megami Tensei, there are very few direct plot-related connections to it, so understanding both series is not a prerequisite. All online references in this article are archived, and while the usage of images may come up at some point in this review, I deemed it necessary to use them as I did to help break up the article and demonstrate points made in the text. Plus, due to the series pre-dating the mid-2000s, GameRankings is used in the aggregate tables as per consensus on the WikiProject talk page. This title became a GA in August 2015, and was given a peer review that same month upon which I performed some copyediting. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Albert Ketèlbey

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 15:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Albert Ketèlbey is an interesting figure: the leading light in British pre-war light music, he was a millionaire by the end of the 1920s through the success of works such as In a Monastery Garden (1915) and In a Persian Market (1920), but died a forgotten figure with his work overlooked by the BBC. This article has been overhauled recently and been through a well-attended PR process prior to this shot at FA. – SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 15:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Certainly meets the criteria, an enjoyable read and effective article improved even further since the PR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Doc - your excellent comments in the PR certainly strengthened what we had. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Rather than {{cite DVD notes}}, I would recommend using {{cite AV media notes}}, and when you already have a notation of "liner notes" you need not include "Notes to...CD" unless this is the formal title
• FN 21 should use a dash rather than a hyphen
• Naxos Records or just Naxos?
• Under what circumstances are you including retrieval date?
• Why are FNs 1 and 80 so different in formatting?
• Fn82, 83: best to link the OCLC number, and do we actually know the name of this CD?
• Who is Peter Deverill?
• Don't italicize WorldCat
• Should include an indication that the Bourderionnet source is in French. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat: will you have first go at these points, and delegate to me ad lib? Tim riley talk 19:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Will do! – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nikkimaria - all now hopefully sorted correctly, but please let me know if I've missed anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Albert Ketèlbey.jpg - Fine
• File:Birmingham and Midland Institute print cropped contrast.jpg - Fine
• File:Blue plaque Albert Ketelbey.jpg - Fine
• File:Cover of the sheet music for In a Monastery Garden.jpg - Looks fine to me
• File:In a Persian Market.jpg - This looks fine
• File:Sheet music for Bells Across the Meadow.jpg - As does this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Excellent - Many thanks, Chris, for your earlier help at PR on these always troublesome tags! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I confess to being something of a philistine when it comes to opera, but I am happy to take a look.

• I know it's a slightly boring point, but I feel obliged to point out that any image published in any form prior to 1923 is, for our purposes, in the public domain (see {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}); the fact you're using a non-free image, therefore, really catches my eye.

• We've struggled to find images of AWK that we can prove were published pre-1923. There are several that were obviously taken before that watershed, but not that we know were published by then. - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• "which Tom McCanna, his biographer, considers "shows a precocious mastery of composition"." The tenses don't quite work for me- how about something like "which, for Tom McCanna, his biographer, "shows a precocious mastery of composition"."?
• Is "licentiate" not a bit obscure? you

• Both the sources shown use the term (Sant capitalises his too): I'm not au fait enough with the technical terminology of musical colleges to know what else would replace it, if anything. TR, what's your view on this? - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• It would make better sense to say "before being awarded his licence" (or "licentiateship" as a pompous alternative). A licentiate is the person holding the certificate of competence, rather as a "graduate" is the holder of a degree, so "being awarded his licentiate" is nonsense really. Personally I'd use the word "certificate", a general term which everyone understands and which means the same thing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done - many thanks Brian - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Charlotte (Lottie) Siegenberg" Would "Charlotte "Lottie" Siegenberg" not be more typical?
• "is described by Sant as "a typical tragical-love ballad of this time, and its almost Victorian sentimentality comes through in its words.[20][21]" Where does your quote end?
• "There are two versions for the inspiration behind the piece" This doesn't quite work for me; surely you mean something like "There are two competing stories detailing the inspiration behind the piece"?
• "while McCanna opines that from the first bar, listeners "... might sooner expect such a device in the impassioned world of a [Gustav] Mahler symphony than in a genteel English salon piece"." This is surely just my ignorance, but it's worth noting that I'm really not clear what is being claimed here.
• "The following year he wrote the gavotte, Wedgewood Blue and In a Persian Market; the latter became one of his more popular works" How about "The following year he wrote Wedgewood Blue—a gavotte—and In a Persian Market; the latter became one of his more popular works"
• "the anonymous reviewer "Ariel" described" Pseudonymous, surely?
• "that the case: "is" Why the colon?
• "£3,493 in 1940 equates to approximately £170,000 in 2015, while £2,906 equates to approximately £89,000 in 2015" I assume that's £2,906 in 1950?
• Was he survived by his second wife, or had she died in the '50s?
• What's a "Caprice"?

• Bloody good question - and I have no idea of the answer! Tim riley, is there something useful we can link to here? I'll leave this and the next four to you (I'll pick up the last one). - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• A "caprice" or "capriccio" is a short, lively piece of music. I have added an appropriare link. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Ketèlbey's piano writing was notable for its brilliance, and the composer's own performance of the solo part of the Concertstück brought out that quality." Is this neutral?
  • It's a true summary of what the source says. We could have the actual words in quotation marks if wanted, but I prefer to keep direct quotes to a minimum as far as possible. I'm wholly biddable in this case. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• "The piano works include the early classical pieces such as the 1888 Sonata" do you need the the before "early"?
  • Without the article I think "early classical" would seem to refer to the style (e.g. J C Bach as opposed to Beethoven's first works) and the article makes it clear that the earliness refers to Ketèlbey's oeuvre rather than the genre. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• " as well as sentimental ballads like "Believe me true" (1897), for their seniors" Why the comma? If you're using a parenthetical clause, you'd need another after "ballads"?
  • My worst – or at any rate most frequent – sin as a prose writer is opening subordinate clauses with a comma and forgetting to close them again. Thank you for spotting this outbreak. I'll ponder whether we want two commas or none here. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know if this is something that has come up before (it strikes me as something that people might be a bit sore about...), but shouldn't songs be in title case?
  • As far as I can work out from the MoS, title case is prescribed for popular songs, but not for classical. I have no personal preference and would be happy with either title or sentence case, though from my (highly unscientific) observation I'd say that sentence case is more usual than title case in our sources. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• "considered "Ketèlbey's especial fame ... consisted in his phenomenal success as a composer of light music" Again, tense shift. claimed that, maybe?
  • I tend to steer clear of "claimed" in such contexts as it carries strong overtones that the writer is pushing a dodgy point of view. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Very readable and engaging. A valuable article. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Josh, Many thanks indeed for your insightful comments: all extremely useful indeed, and I hope I've done them some justice. There's a few for my co-nom to deal with as they're beyond my (limited) scope of knowledge. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tomorrow, I promise! Am busy having a Sergeant Pepper event today. Tim riley talk 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • My thanks to Josh, too. Points now addressed, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Support; a very nice article. I could probably quibble about commas a little further, but I think this probably comes down to stylistic differences rather than right/wrong. I'd be inclined to suggest switching song titles to title case, but I'm not going to hold up my support on that. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

May thanks Josh for your support, and more importantly, for your thoughts and comments: all hugely appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Support My concerns were addressed at the peer review, and I'm confident J Milburn's will be as well. Excellent article, though I admit it is someone I'd never heard of. Possibly will come in handy at pub trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt, for your earlier input and your support here. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• brilliant studentship - "brilliant" strikes me as potentially editorializing, as it is in Wikipedia's voice

• I'm not sure about this: it was, after all, brilliant: he won nearly all the prizes on offer and two scholarships. Tim, do you have a view on this? - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I'd defend "brilliant" here. The word crops up often enough in the sources, and the facts speak for themselves rather. Anyone who beats Gustav Holst into second place must be pretty brilliant, meseems. We could put "brilliant" in quotes and cite it if wanted, but I think that'd be a touch of overkill. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright, but I'm still a little uneasy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Harold worth an article? St John's Church, Wimbledon?

• I'm not sure on Harold: it's difficult to separate him from his brother a lot of the time, but I'll have a hunt round and see what there is. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've vaguely had the same thought about brother Harold. I think we could scrape enough material together, but I'm not quite convinced from my encounters with him during Albertine researches that he is definitely notable. Borderline, I'd say. Happy to have a joint go if you fancy it, SchroCat, and see if we think the result meets notability guidelines. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• the local St Silas' Church in Lozells. - local strikes me as unnecessary, as you have the name of his church as well
• In 1904 he also began to work for a second music publisher, Chappell & Co, a third in 1907 (the Columbia Graphophone Company) and a fourth in 1910, when he worked for Elkin & Co. - aren't such sentences supposed to have parallel structures?
• In 1912 the composer and cellist Auguste van Biene offered a prize for a new work to complement his popular piece The Broken Melody. Ketèlbey was the winner of the competition with a new work, The Phantom Melody, which became his first major success. - new work ... new work — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• After three weeks the case ended with the judge finding against Columbia and Ketèlbey. - so what remunerations was he forced to make?

• I've removed his name: the case was against Columbia and AWK was their chief witness, rather than a named party, so I've altered is slightly to make that clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• His music was popular on the continent and his obituarist in The Times later reported that one Viennese critic considered that "Ketèlbey's music ... came second only to that of ... Johann Strauss and Franz Lehár", while continental audiences often called him "The English Strauss". - strikes me as too many conjunctions

• ...and strictly speaking, if he's ranked behind Strauss and Lehar, he is in third place in the triumvirate! I'd replace "second only to that of" with "behind only that of". Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tweaked - thanks again brian (and for the Caprice link too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Aren't songs written in title case? You do it below ("My Lady Héroïne")
• Bells across the Meadows - In italics or quotes? Link on first mention (in the lede too) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Chris: all dealt with, I hope, except the first, and I'd like Tim's view on that one. Much appreciated as always! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added a line or two. My thanks to Chris, too. Tim riley talk 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Nice work — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Chris - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: For some reason, Ketelbey has always irritated me – I think it's that pretentious accent (maybe I will adopt a circumflex and become Bôulton) – but I did my stuff at peer review and have chipped in with a few more tweaks, above. Not sure he deserves such a quality article (perhaps by "the English Strauss" they meant Levi), but there we are. Good work, chaps. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian. I know he's not to everyone's taste - a little twee, perhaps, a little too populist, maybe, but some of his work is actually quite good! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

A good piece of work that I'm ready to support, but a couple of niggles:

• "In the following year he wrote Wedgewood Blue—..." - is that right? It is of course a common howler for Wedgwood and their famous blue.
  • v. cross with self for missing that after recent work on RVW with his Wedgwood ancestry. Thank you, Johnbod. Tim riley talk 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• "In 1921 Ketèlbey moved from his home in St John's Wood, where he had been living for the previous seven years, to Frognal, a fashionable area of Hampstead,..." somehow "fashionable" doesn't seem right for Frognal, even in 1921. Solidly respectable, with an arty fringe, more like.
• "He spent the remainder of the year staying in hotels in Southern Britain..." so, like England then? Or even southern England? No caps needed I think. No article for the South Coast, where he probably actually was.

Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Johnbod, both for your comments and tweaks. I've addressed these as you've suggested. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Per above - points dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Johnbod for your support, and more importantly, for your thoughts and comments: all hugely appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Three quick thoughts - (1) was it really the "Convert Orchestra", or should that be "Concert"? (2) Do we really need wikilinks to the individual musical notes in "D E C C A"? I doubt anyone is going to divert to read about C (musical note), for example, so would piping "musical notes" to link to Chromatic scale work better? (3) The final image for me runs down into the notes/references/sources - would a {{clear}} at the end of the text be inappropriate? I don't have the time for a detailed read/review but I did very much enjoy reading this article about a composer I knew little if anything about beforehand. Benchèrlite (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• All three dealt with, as per your suggestions, M Benchèrlite. Very much appreciated! -SchröCat (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Circus Juventas

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about North America's largest youth circus arts school, housed in a permanent big top facility in chilly Saint Paul, Minnesota. Now in its 22nd year, Circus Juventas is a unique Twin Cities institution, producing a grand summer show at their big top each year since it opened in 2001. The article itself is almost 12 years old and its improvement has been a long-running project of mine, with the biggest expansion June-August 2014. It has since undergone GA and peer review, as well as a bunch of other tweaks and updates. This is my first FA nomination and I'm happy to respond to any and all comments (and also requests for text hidden in locked news databases!) Thank much, and may all your days be circus days! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Passenger pigeon

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most famous bird species to have been exterminated by humans, but it was also notable for being a very unique pigeon when it existed. The last specimen died on September 1, 1914, so we missed the hundredth anniversary, but it is hoped that (if it passes here) the article could have a main page appearance on that date this year instead. This was originally intended to be a co-nomination with Rufous-crowned Sparrow, who worked on the article back in 2013 (giving the article a solid "skeleton"), but has since been absent from Wikipedia; I recently pulled myself together and finished my part of the work, and 7&6=thirteen has also made many additions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• This is a long article so it might take some time to review the entire thing. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 23:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Is this written in American English? If so, place the {{American English}} template to the article's talk page

American, added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the lead, change "The male was...The female was...The juvenile was" to "The males were...The females were...The juveniles were"; also do this in the Description section

This is how the sources say it, and is the norm in ornithological literature, which we generally follow. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the lead, change "but hunting became intensified" to "but hunting intensified"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the lead, change "This has been described..." to "It has been described..."

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the Taxonomy section, change "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature..." to "...International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN)..."

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are some American/British English inconsistencies. For example, I see coloration and coloured used.

Fixed that one, see others? FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• You there, Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• If you're going to use American English, it may be best to use empirical units rather than the metric system (instead of cm to in, in to cm); both are actually used in the article, converting cm to in before the Ecology section and converting cm to in after the Ecology section. Be consistent and if you do fix it, use empirical units since this is written in American English

Can you have look at the unit issues, 7&6=thirteen? I'm not much of a numbers guy. There are also two more such issues listed below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to ping User:7&6=thirteen another way... Did it work? FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Will take a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be something that occurs throughout the article, though, would it be possible for you to fix them all? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe I did. I again used FIND to look for "cm" and those all conform. The speed appears twice and is in the right format. So I don't know what else it is you want. Please point me in the right direction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, makes sense, because the remaining issues are when the first number uses mm before in. There are also a bunch of places where "acres" are mentioned, but without any conversion following. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed all the mms and inches. Just reversed. I guess we will have to manually do a hectares and acres conversion. Not sure what the template is. 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Done 100 square miles ((260 km2) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, conversion can often be done by just writing an equation into Google... FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• This sentence in the Description section "It is a washed brown on the upper parts, wing covert, secondary feathers, and tail (where it would otherwise have been gray), and white on the primary feathers and underparts,[needs a conjunction or period] the normally black spots are brown,[consider putting a period here] and it is pale gray on the head, lower back, and upper-tail covert feathers, yet the iridescence is unaffected" is a run-on

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the Description section, change "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that other pigeons..." to "...to differentiate the bird's osteology from that of other pigeons...

Added "of". FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the Description section, wikilink "musculus supracoracoideus"

There's no article, do you want a red link? FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Use either mph to kph or mi/h to km/h when converting units

Done Just reversed them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the Diet section, the fruit of dogwood is called Canadian dwarf cornel, Canadian bunchberry, or crackerberry (same fruit different name)

Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the Reproduction section, the sentence "ranging from 120 acres (49 ha) to thousands of hectares in size" is inconsistent with units

Images

• change "...illustration of this species (a male)..." to "...illustration of the species (a male)..."

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

References

• For all references that require one to sign into an account (when redirected to the given link), use {{Registration required}}, assuming registration is free, as with ref no. 14 (Johnson and Clayton et al.)

I've removed such URLs instead, they are redundant, since the DOI is already a link. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Added all (many) relevant blue links to references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I went through all the citations and added any possible links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I note that when I click on the links in this reference, there is a discrepancy as to the names of the authors.
Hung, C. M.; Shaner, P. J. L.; Zink, R. M.; Liu, W. C.; Chu, T. C.; Huang, W. S.; Li, S. H. (2014). "Drastic population fluctuations explain the rapid extinction of the passenger pigeon". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (29): 10636–10641. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11110636H. doi:10.1073/pnas.1401526111
I do not know why. Nor do I know how to resolve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the vocalization score

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• File:Map-Ectopistes-migratorius.png: can we be more specific about the source - was this map published, is it held in an archive...?

Added book source to the file page, better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• File:Mershon's_The_Passenger_Pigeon_(frontispiece,_crop).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Added — to all page ranges per earlier Peer Review of this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice, and on this note, seems the link to that peer review is not working? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See above. Added link to earlier Peer Review of this article 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, is there any reason why the link to that peer review is red on the passenger pigeon talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was archived. Probably changed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed Sort of. formatting is wrong. Not sure how to deal with the template. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Better than before, at least. I had never seen that peer review before because the link didn't work... But nice that you made the request for it! FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been editing this article forever. Or so it seems. So I had 'local knowledge.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf

This is a really comprehensive article with remarkable flawlessness in presentation, language and informativeness. Dunkleosteus77 has already taken care of Lead and the introduction of Taxonomy. I begin from where he/she left off.

Evolution

• I find some vagueness at the start of Evolution. It was even suggested that the mourning dove belonged to the genus Ectopistes and was listed by some authors as E. carolinensis. Could we cite any article from those "authors"? Or a reword?

Mentioned one, though I'm not sure who made the recombination originally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have often found there is trouble when simply names are mentioned without identity. For instance we do not know who Kevin P. Johnson and Fulton are. If you can not identify them then simply write a 2010 or 2012 study. The references already name the authors, so why invite vagueness?

Would something like "American geneticist" or "researcher" be enough? I've removed the first names of those that did not have articles, perhaps it's better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well we must get the professions correct. Sorry I could not see what changes you have made. Anyway I think the best way would be to say 2010/2012 study as you have done elsewhere. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed the two latter names, but kept Beth Shapiro, since she has an article, and because she headed the first ever study... FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• DNA in old museum specimens is often degraded and fragmentary, and passenger pigeon specimens have been used in various studies to discover improved methods of analyzing and assembling genomes from such material. DNA samples are often taken from the toe pads of bird skins in museums, as this can be done without causing significant damage to valuable specimens. This looks like it has more to do with the utility of this species to human beings rather than its evolution.

I can somewhat see what you mean, but I think it is relevant to mention the methods used and the importance of the species, as a "type example" for studies of extinct animal DNA. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I can not see where else this could fit in! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The bird was able to hybridize with the Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) in captivity, though the offspring was infertile. If you are referring to this as an observation made during some study, and not as if such hybridization was natural and common, then mention when it was observed.

The case in point is Whitman's aviary described at length under "Last survivors". I was concerned I would add too much duplicate information if I explained that at length there, but I have clarified a bit, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess you should put all the info about this under Taxonomy where I think it would be more interesting. So you will also be saved from the duplication issue. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added all that seemed relevant there. The hybrids are only mentioned once again in the later section, as part of the explanation of what happened to the last surviving group. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just noticed that all links used in the cladogram are duplicate.

That's common across all FAs I know of, it just makes it easier for the reader to know what all these names in succession refer to. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I guess Etymology could be made into a different section altogether, what has this got to do with the Taxonomy?

I can understand the concern, though as above, this is also common for FAs, and here the explanation of the scientific name at least is relevant to taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I have not seen many FAs then let it be so if that's the style. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Description

• "Iridescent" is a duplicate link.

Removed second time. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Like carmine, I think rufous too deserves a link.

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The plumage of the sexes was similar during their first year." I think "juvenile males show change in plumage after a year" better conveys the fact.

I think that would be an oversimplification, because I don't think the iridescence appeared in either sex until this time, therefore the female changed as well. But this is not clearly stated in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• Why not link the United States just like the other countries under this section?

Linked at first mention now, which is under evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ecology and behavior

• ...it accounted for between 25 and 40% of the total... I guess here it would be better to write % as percent, adds to the MoS.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Beechnuts" and "chestnuts" are duplicate links in Diet.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The detail about when the bird gained sexual maturity should come before going into the details of mating. At least it should not figure at the very end.

Heh, it is kind of a chicken and the egg situation, where the cycle should begin and where it should end. Now it is mentioned in relation to juveniles leaving the nest, because that part already deals with development to adulthood. I think it makes more sense there, since if it was added to the beginning, it would be a bit disjointed from the rest of that text, which starts somewhat "in medias res" with the adult birds finding nesting grounds... FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• You should state here itself that John James Audubon is a naturalist, not in the following section.

Not sure what is meant (since he is already described as a naturalist at first mention), that I remove the second mention of naturalist? There it is used collectively for Audubon and Wilson, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Where is the first mention? Is it not just above the second quote? Add the naturalist fact wherever it is, and no need to omit the second mention.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

First mention is before the first quote (right under the Ecology and behavior header)! FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Link incubation.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with humans

• International Union for the Conservation of Nature Add the abbreviation IUCN as you did for ICZN.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Under Last survivors, endling is a duplicate link.

Removed the first time which was an easter egg link. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

General: "Observers", "many observers" are used continuously throughout the article. I am not sure if this should be treated as vague at some places, but if such repetition could be avoided and reworded, I think it would be better. Not much of an issue, though.

Cut some instances. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the impeccable writing and exploring of several details without deviating from the main topic. Also, I noted a positive point about this article, that much caution has been used about what all to link and maintain consistency, for instance linking just the geographical landmarks and not the States, I mean it's a good job! I have noticed only a few small flaws that once resolved should make the article all-perfect. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll go through these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick response! Great, FunkMonk! We shall continue with the few things left. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 20:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

History of York City F.C. (1980–present)

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This article details the history of York City Football Club, an association football club based in York, England, from 1980 to the present time. The article follows on from History of York City F.C. (1908–80), which has been a featured article since November 2015. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The 70th Infantry Division was a short-lived British unit (with it's origins in the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions) that fought during the latter stages of the Siege of Tobruk, before being dispatched to India and broken up to reinforce the Chindits. The article has previously passed it's GA and A-Class reviews, I am hoping the good run continues. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Support I've reviewed all of the changes since its A-class review and believe that the article meets the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• "During this fighting, two men – from units attached to the division – were awarded the Victoria Cross.": The Victoria Cross for one of them wasn't gazetted until February the next year, and I'm guessing the other VC wasn't instantaneous, either. It seems unlikely to me the medals were awarded during the fighting, but you may know different. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both your comments. I have amended the references to earning them during the battle, per your observation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments I added about a para or two of material to this article, but I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to review it. I have the following comments:

• Given that the article traces the (somewhat torturous!) history of the division back to 1939, the lead (especially the first para) is a bit lacking

  Expanded somewhat.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• The material on the division's operations in 1939 is a bit undetailed, and what's meant by "O'Connor had stated "harshness and unnecessary violence on the part of our soldiers" were to be curbed" is unclear as a result: what were the troops doing?

  Added some material, seems the 8th Division (and the SNS) were being somewhat naughty!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The headquarters was then assigned all troops based there" what did these comprise? (eg, was it basically an infantry division minus a HQ, or something else?)

  I have added brigade info, does this resolve this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Looks good, especially as there's a full order of battle at the end of the article Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "and its headquarters transformed into the Western Desert Force (WDF)" - perhaps note that this was basically a corps HQ

  I amended the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to provide an outline of the 6th Division's order of battle upon formation in 1941 in the text of the article (at least which brigades were in the division). Also, where did its troops and constituent units come from?
• "he was overruled by London" - it would be preferable to say what individual/organisation in London made this decision Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  The sources used, and others I have just checked out, all agree that Wingate's relationship with Churchill was key; what Wingate wanted, Churchill made sure he got, including the breakup of the division it would seem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Support My comments are now adressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

  I believe I got them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest scaling up the map size. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have scaled it up per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and review guys, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Look forward to your continued feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Serpin

Nominator(s):: T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03::40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a protein superfamily that is significant to both fundamental science (protein conformational change and enzyme inhibition) and applied science (mutations cause a wide array of Genetic disorder). It has been a Good Article since 2007, and has been significantly improved since then (particularly images, layout, readability and accessibility to lay audience). There are relatively few high-quality articles on protein superfamilies currently, so it would be good to have an FA example. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03::40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.

Hi Evo & Evo, looking good so far, although I'm only partway through. Thought I'd leave these comments to let you get started. Mostly minor copy editing stuff::

• Might it make sense to add into the first sentence or para what organisms they occur in? e.g. "Serpins are a superfamily of proteins with similar structures, found in all kingdoms of organisms, that were first identified for their protease inhibition activity."

Done - Good point, although I've put their occurrence second in the sentence since it seems the subsidiary point of the sentence.

• I dunno if you can do anything about this, but the first para says "inhibit" so much the word starts to lose its meaning.

Done - I've inhibit managed inhibit to inhibit reduce inhibit the inhibit occurences inhibit a inhibit little. A keen eye could perhaps excise one or two more.

I replaced one with 'acts on', now that's a normal number of 'inhibits'! delldot ∇. 06::38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• In History, why is this a new para? "Examples of cross-class inhibitory serpins..." My understanding is short paras are discouraged.

Done - (suspect you mean Activity section) I've combined the paragraphs, since they were clearly discussing the same topic.

• Citations needed: "It is presently unclear whether any mammalian serpins function to inhibit caspases in vivo." "Structural biology has therefore played a central role in the understanding of serpin function and biology." "Around the same time, the first structures were solved..." and "The structures indicated that the inhibitory mechanism involved..."

I'll address these over the next week. Some are easy. A couple I'll have to look up.

Done - The caspase sentence has been removed, since it was an overemphasis on caspases, which held no particular significance in that section. The rest have had references added (or reviews repeated from elsewhere)

• In Protease inhibition, the last sentence seems like a non sequitur. Could there be transition wording or could it be incorporated elsewhere? "In Caenorhabditis elegans, all serpins lack signal sequences..."

Done - I think it was originally included as an example of intracellular serpins, but it's was simultaneously over-specific and vague so I'v moved it down to the Distribution section.

• In structure, Reactive Centre Loop is inconsistently capitalized.

Done

• Why the switch from plural to singular? "Serpins are classed as irreversible inhibitors and a suicide inhibitor"

Done

• Can you replase one 'basis' with another word? "The understanding of the molecular basis of this interaction formed the basis of the development..."

Done - definite improvement

• in Latent conformation, does this exist only in proteins that do not have the described in the previous section, or do some proteins do both?

To the best of my knowledge, latency and activation are relatively rare and no serpins have been described that show both. Jcwhizz may know more.

Ah so this is instead, not in addition. Does that go without saying, or should that be indicated? delldot ∇. 06::38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Done - Aha, antithrobin can do both (convert to latency, and be allosterically activated by a cofactor). I've therefore updated the section to make clear that both are possible for the same serpin.

• The section Deficiency is very short. Could it be fleshed out with any examples?

In progress

I'm not a stickler for the cosmetic stuff so I won't object to the two-sentence paragraph, but it would be good to have examples of the conditions that can result, as the other subsections have. delldot ∇. 06::38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Done - Whilt looking for more examples it became clear that deficiency almost invariably refers to deficiency due to polymerisation. The few examples of null mutants or less active mutatnts I've now grouped together into a single subsection. I've made clear at the beginning of the Disease section and Polymerisation subsection that polymerisation is the most common mechanism of serpin-caused disease

• Inconsistent spelling of α-Antitrypsin deficiency.

Done

• Unclear:: "Each monomer of the serpin aggregate in the relaxed conformation (RCL inserted into the A-sheet)."

Done

• Unnecessary 'in'? "The domain-swapped trimer (of antitrypsin) forms in via the exchange of..."

Done

• I think 'and / or' is discouraged. Would 'and' work just as well by itself here? "Lung and / or liver transplantation is also used to treat"

Done - Hadn't noticed that one! "And" is definitely sufficient.

• "gene targeting in induced pluripotent stem cells has successfully been deployed to correct the Z-antitrypsin defect..." This is the only mention of the Z-antitrypsin defect, can it be described or linked?

Done - I think the term can be safely removed and left as the more descriptive "antitrypsin polymerisation defect"

In general I have no major complaints! Well done making this tough-to-comprehend topic understandable! delldot ∇. 04::28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the points so far. I've addressed most of them. the ones that require some more reading I'll try to get to over the week. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11::41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking good so far! I replied to a couple of your replies. (Oh, BTW, I think the {{done}} template is discouraged on this page, see the blue box up top). I will be back soon with more input. delldot ∇. 06::38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A few more::

• "Antitrypsin augmentation therapy is approved for severe..." Could this sentence be expanded a bit to explain what Antitrypsin augmentation therapy is? Do they just pump a bunch of it into you?

Done - turns out basically yes, not even recombinant currently, jut purified from donor plasma.

• In Degradation, I think it might help to add a topic sentence up front to help introduce and transition to the new topic. Something like, "once a serpin has successfully formed a complex with its target enzyme, it must be broken down and disposed of."

Done

• I think the Signalling section needs to be fleshed out a bit. It might also make sense to move it above Degradation, since wouldn't it seem more logical for the latter to come at the end? But do these really need to be separate sections? What if Conformational change in non-inhibitory function were broadened to be, like, Other things that serpins also do? The signalling seems like it could follow that para. Then the whole article might flow better: How they function in cells, why it's bad when they don't, evolution. Not sure if this would work, just an idea.

Done - I added some more information, then realised that it's really two different phenomena that already have logical places to merge. Where signalling is merely due to the cleave of signalling cascade proteases, I've merged the info into the Function section. Where signalling is due to direct binding of the R-conformation, I've merged it into the Conformational change in non-inhibitory functions section. Degradation is now under the normal functioning, before the Disease section.

Gotta sleep, more later! delldot ∇. 07::13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Last few::

• In Human, might it be better to spell out 'about' or 'roughly' rather than a tilde? "analysis of ~500 serpins from 2001".

Done

• I like the idea of hiding the massive table in a navbox collapsed. Might it look better like [https:://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Delldot/sandbox&oldid=698587708 this] rather than having the column headers showing in the title bar?

Done - I've implemented your formatting and moved PDB codes to the end.

• In Insect, does 'toll' need to be capitalized? Should this be hyphenated, Toll-mediated? "...which results in Toll mediated signaling..."

Done - lower case is correct, and hyphenated is appropriate

• In Plant, could "the most well-studied example" be written "the best studied example"? delldot ∇. 01::54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Done

Nice job so far! Just one additional comment::

• "The presence of serpins in plants has long been recognised,[166] indeed, an abundant barley grain serpin (barley protein Z) is one of the major protein components in beer." I think this sentence carries a false implication, that recognising serpins and putting them in beer are linked. I'm picturing like the ancient Egyptians or whoever going "aren't these serpins great? Let's put them in beer!" I think just splitting into two sentences and removing the 'indeed' would fix this.

Anyway, ping me when you're done with all my comments, looks like you're super close! delldot ∇. 07::13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work, everything above is addressed. I read it again so of course I now have more comments (don't worry, there's fewer each time!).

• Is this supposed to be capitalized? "a large Extracellular multiprotein complex" I changed one before noticing this one and being overcome by self-doubt. also, maybe a link for extracellular?
• The Non-inhibitory roles section is smallish. Is there another sentence that could be said about this? "heat shock serpin HSP47 is a chaperone, essential for proper folding of collagen." What role does it play?
• Is this correct hyphenation? "In some serpins, the S-to -R transition"
• "polymers are slowly removed via endoplasmic reticulum associated degradation." Should this be "endoplasmic-reticulum-associated" or "endoplasmic reticulum-associated"?
• The ref Acosta 2015 uses semicolons instead of commas between author names. Same with Mushunje 2004 and Walenga 2002 (also names not initials) and Fermi 1984 (and aren't you supposed to fill a parameter for what language the source is if it's not English?) Also some titles capitalize every word (e.g. de Serres 2002 and Egeberg 1965) and most don't.

Real minor stuff. It's promotable now, so I'll go ahead and give my support now on the assumption that you'll do whatever's best with these last few. I did some minor copy editing, you may want to double check it though. delldot ∇. 18:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jfdwolff

I'm impressed by the current state of the article (I created its first version in March 2004...) Well done to Evolution and evolvability (and of course to Jcwhizz who has contributed significantly to the content). This is well outside my professional scope so my comments will be limited. JFW | T@lk 16::47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• My main concern is about the decision to use primary sources as support for many statements. For clinical articles we are quite strict about secondary sources, although I am fully aware that this is less of a concern for the basic sciences. Is there any scope for increasing reliance on secondary sources? I am worried that claims about transcortin deficiency "caus[ing] chronic fatigue" might be misinterpreted, and I would suggest that all associations with human disease are supported with WP:MEDRS-compatible secondary source whenever possible.

I see your point (particularly the megatable, which contains almost 50% of the total references). I'm not usually involved in MED articles, but the disease section and table of human serpins definitely fall within the remit of [[WP::MEDRS]], so I'll put that as a priority. For these sections (and much of the rest of the article), there are a half dozen or so extensive reviews cited that can be used to support more of the paragraphs to increase the weighting of secondary sources.

Done (maybe) - I've replaced all lead citations with major secondary sources. I've also made sure that all main points made in the Disease section are supported by a secondary source as well as any primaries. Finjally, I've addeed the two main secondary sources for the megatable in its heading. In fact the megatable has a high degree of overlap with the tables presented in both of those references. If appropriate, I'd prefer to keep the primary refs in the table, mostly so that as new functions are discovered, they can be easily added. I'd particularly value your opinion on the use of the main secondary sources in the column name of the the deficiency column of the megatable.

• Other point:: consistency of capitalisation in the "Decription" column of the "Table of human serpins", and occasionally in "Common name" and "Disease / Effect of deficiency".

Done - I've gone though and made a stack of clarity and consistency edits. I find it easy to miss those sorts of things in tables.

• In the same table:: what is "Angiodemia"?

Done - wow, it's amazing how long a typo can go unrecognised.

Response from T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)

@Delldot and Jfdwolff: I've gone through all of the comments above! Let me know if you think the responses sufficient, or if you recommend any further changes. The article is already much improved from your suggestions. One final question is what are your opinions of the External links section? Lists of laboratories seem to be common in science articles, but I'm never sure how well they are kept up to date, or weighted by significance. Finally, I've taken the liberty of emailing the lab heads on that list to see if any are willing to cast their eye over the article before it finishes review. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury

Nominator(s): delldot ∇. 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spinal cord injury has profound implications for sexual function and for sexuality in its broadest sense, affecting relationships, self-esteem, and quality of life. However the effects are different from what most people expect. This article has had a peer review, and two of the experts cited in the article were kind enough to give it detailed reviews as well. I'm excited to hear your thoughts! delldot ∇. 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from soupvector

Some immediate impressions

• Images are important, but sparse in this article (not a deal-breaker, I would think, but something to consider).
• Two of the images may lead some readers to confuse/conflate afferent and efferent pathways (though both are high-quality). The dermatome map is afferent, and the "pathways" figure is efferent. Arrows (pointed from the CNS toward the genitals) might help with the latter. The caption of the former should stipulate prominently that's its a sensory map.

Hope this helps. I'll try to read more fully, but these popped out at me. — soupvector (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!

• Yeah, I've thought hard about what images I can add, but not come up with much that would do more than decorate. There's a photo of different personal lubricants I could add, and I've actually thought of taking photos of someone in a wheelchair holding hands with or kissing someone for the lead. Not sure if either or both of those would help, what do you think?
• I added "sensory" to the dermatomes map. The image I based the reflexogenic and psychogenic image on has both afferent and efferent functions. (erm, click on the first link in this search). e.g. "The pudendal nerves from S2–S4 comprise both motor efferent (neuronal cell bodies in Onuf’s nucleus) and sensory afferent fibers" in the caption. Did I oversimplify this so much it lost meaning? Thanks for the help soupvector! delldot ∇. 01:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dodger67

Just a few initial comments:

• I couldn't find the two expert reviews mentioned above - please provide links, or even transclusions in the article Talk page if they are not too long. Unless of course I'm simply not seeing obvious links.
• The sourcing and referencing is very good, no concerns there. You've managed to cite a good mix of strictly MEDRS and more general non-medical sources. I come to this FAC review from a disability rights POV so I really appreciate the non-medical content. All too often the medical world treats PWDs as "lab specimens" rather than complete people who do actually have lives outside of hospitals and doctors' surgeries.
• The prose appears well written, I haven't gone through it wearing my "grammar nazi" hat yet, but will do so soon.
• As far as images are concerned I think it's sufficient, there's no need to include "crip porn".
• (Content comment, not really FAC issue) You've cited the Push Girls tv series in the "Society and culture" section for the women's POV, have you ever seen Murderball? It's a documentary about the US national wheelchair rugby team. It contains quite a bit of "locker room banter" from the male "sports jock" POV as well as a very frank "interview" that includes some discussion of sexuality. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words! The two experts gave me the reviews over email, I failed to ask them if I could post their names or words online. I could ask them for permission, if you think it's best, but I do feel kind of awkward bugging them again after they were already so generous with their time. Would it work for me to forward you their emails? I'm not trying to be sketchy here, I don't know if there's a procedure for this. Here are some of my edits in response to the reviews: [1][2][3]
  • I have seen murderball the sport, but not Murderball the documentary. Let me look for sources and see if there's something that would be good to include. Thanks for all the input here and beforehand! delldot ∇. 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how emailed external reviews should be treated but published reviews are handled according to WP:External peer review. You're welcome to contact me through email - there should be a menu item "Email this user" when you're on my user page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Cool, I've emailed them to you. delldot ∇. 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jfdwolff

Compliments on this important article. It is very comprehensive and meticulously sourced. A small number of comments in addition to my previous peer review: JFW | T@lk 12:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• ✓ Done The choice of section headers and levels is still a little bit unclear. The "Sexuality and identity" starts by summarising normal function, then moves to the situation after SCI. Can the content be integrated into the larger section called "sexual function", with a somewhat clearer distinction between "normal" and "post-SCI"?
  • This resulted from a discussion about sexuality as a broader topic than sexual function (justifying inclusion of topics like relationships, social stigma, self-esteem, etc.) and a concern that 'sexuality' might be confused with sexual orientation. So I thought it was important to have a "what do we mean by sexuality and why is it important" section first, defining the term. If the name of the section is a problem, could rename it to 'Sexuality defined' or 'Definitions' or something. I edited the section to distinguish better between pre- and post-SCI, what do you think? delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The section title is tricky, because IIRC the MOS discourages sections called "introduction" etc. Not a dealbreaker in any form; clearly some definitions are required for the remainder of the article to flow well. JFW | T@lk 09:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• ✓ Done The opening sentence of the section "sexual function" says "Sexual dysfunction usually results from SCI". Would active an form be better?
  • Good call. Done. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• ✓ Done There is a single red link to American Spinal Injury Association - perhaps a stub could be created as this appears to be a notable professional organisation. (Almost synchronicitically I bumped into the ASIA website this morning when looking at a journal article about spinal examination!)
  • Done. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• ✓ Done This might be hard, but the images in the subsection "Level of injury" are both colour-coded, but differently. What's the chances of harmonising the colouring?
  • Ooh, I know, this bugged me too. I will work on this but I'm not sure my attempt at images in Inkscape is going to be better than what's there. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. What do you think, JFW? delldot ∇. 05:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Delldot Terrific! A marked improvement & can be used in quite a few other articles. JFW | T@lk 10:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• ✓ Done I found a fair number of links that go through redirects.
  • Done. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you JFW! I'll ping you when I've worked on those images. delldot ∇. 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! JFW | T@lk 09:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Delldot the WP:Graphics Lab can help with improving and editing images. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, good to know, thanks. I gave the svg image a few more tweaks in inkscape to match the spinal column, so now I'm pretty pleased with it. I'm satisfied with the images if others are! delldot ∇. 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Banksia caleyi

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I do have a mission to get the whole opus of Banksia "complete" as it were (to FA standard). Here is the latest one of these - Banksia caleyi. I sprinkle these through every so often to 'mix it up' a little. I feel this is of a standard as the other banksia FAs. I'll fix stuff quick-smart I promise. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• A few quick comments:
  • The convert template makes the sentence beginning "Seedlings have cuneate (wedge-shaped) cotyledons" have a range of "1⁄2–1⁄2 in". Maybe there's a template parameter that lets you just put "about 1/2 in"? There's also a "5⁄8–5⁄8 in" earlier in that para.

I detemplated it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• • The word "lives" is confusing here: "Seedlings have hairy stems and leaves opposite lives..." Could it link to an article or have a parenthetical explanation?

I have no idea what happened there. Reoworded proper now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• • I don't understand this sentence: "The caterpillar of the dryandra moth (Carthaea saturnioides) feeds on the leaves, though co-occurring dryandras are much preferred."

rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Missing subject? "Unlike many other Western Australian banksias, has had some degree of success..."

oops, added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• • For more logical flow, I would suggest reorganizing Cultivation thus: Seed germination time. growth time. flowers obscured by the foliage. tolerates light pruning, PH range, sun & shade. grows in more humid areas. attracts pygmy and honey possums. After all, who would not want their article to end with something as adorable sounding as pygmy and honey possums??

rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Great work! delldot ∇. 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, everything's addressed, support. delldot ∇. 05:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you've basically worked this out now, so I doubt I'll have much to offer...

• The second paragraph of the lead strikes me as a bit choppy.

rejigged a little...can you be more specific? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is "friable" jargon?

a little - changed to "crumbly", which is what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The inflorescences eventually turn grey, the old flowers remaining as up to 25 large woody follicles develop." Is this what you mean to say? Old flowers remain while, at the same time, up to 25 large woody follicles develop?

yes - they remain on the spike. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia because its inflorescence is a typical Banksia flower spike" Is it?

the shape is...it's just upside down. I added "shape" to (hopefully) clarify this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• "They foreshadowed publishing a full arrangement once DNA sampling of Dryandra was complete" Are you missing a word or two here?

added "of Banksia" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm by no means certain about this, but I'm not convinced that you can use "foreshadow" like that, if the "they" refers to the authors. The OED defines foreshadow as "To serve as the shadow thrown before (an object); hence, to represent imperfectly beforehand, prefigure. Also rarely (of a person), to have a foreboding of." So, the authors' current arrangement foreshadows the arrangement which will be forthcoming, perhaps, but if they are foreshadowing something, it's because they themselves are imperfectly representing it, or because they have some foreboding of it. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed to something simpler. How's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've switched the tense a little; how's this? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. looks fine. behind the scenes folks are still squabbling a little about the sinking of dryandra into banksia - sensitive topic to some... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• As the caterpillar is parasitic, perhaps the paragraph could be merged with that of the mould?

merged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Seeds do not require any treatment, and take 23 to 50 days to germinate." Needs more- a clarification that you're talking about cultivation? I know it's immediately below the section title, but still...

added "in cultivation" now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• The caption "old flower spike showing large follicles – MHNT" is a little cryptic to me.

unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As ever, very strong. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are fine- all freely licensed with details provided. The caption issue mentioned above is perhaps the only issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review:

• George 1999 is missing a publishing location

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Collins et al 2008 uses the long ISBN, others use the short. Consistency would be good.

done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do you need "via WikiSource"? I was under the impression that this was more for newspaper archives. You don't provide "via the Biodiversity Library", for example.

removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to be inconsistent on whether you provide ISSNs- I wouldn't bother.

The 1981 Nuytsia one does not have any other identifiers I could find though..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• In Mast and Givnish 2002, your "main" external link is redundant to the DOI

I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• In Lamont and Markey 1995, is "South-western" a proper noun? Same in Wiens et al (along with "Honey")

title cased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• For consistency's sake, do we know the first names of McCredie et al?

I found and added (finally!). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Why title case for McFarland 1979, but not elsehwere?

oops, I like 'em all title case...done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• In Weins et al 1979, the JSTOR link is redundant to the DOI

removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's as picky as I can manage. Spotchecks came back OK. I certainly haven't performed a comprehensive literature search, but Google Scholar certainly isn't suggesting that you have missed anything significant. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. Very strong, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to mention that this species is found in Western Australia twice?

I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• dieback - got a link handy?

Issue is dieback is a disambiguation page and the daughter article is the same as the mould. Should I link twice... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• What about linking to wiktionary? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

sure Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• You gloss cuneate twice

I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The annual rainfall is 550–600 mm (22–24 in). It is often locally abundant. - what is often abundant, the rain or the plant? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

rejigged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - All looks good. Just one minor consideration left above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• I've never reviewed a plant article before, so here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• No photo of seeds?

Hmm, I don't have any. Will do a scour around.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• No author dates after authorities in the taxobox, is this a plant convention?

Good point - I haven't done it for many that I can recall, so of the last 5 plants articles put through FA, Telopea truncata, Brachychiton rupestris, Acacia pycnantha and Epacris impressa were lacking in dates, while Banksia lemanniana had one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The type specimen was collected by William Baxter, inland from King George Sound, in 1829." Not sure, but perhaps mention western Australia here?

Added it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The challenge failed, and Banksia L.f. was formally conserved." When?
• "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia" This is the first time you use the name George alone, and the first time I read it, it confused me a bit, because there are already two George's mentioned (first names) in the text... Perhaps add dates to every time someone did something, to set them apart? Now you only do it for namings, but could be nice for revisions as well.

Added first name and context - it was the landmark 1981 monograph. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• No cladogram for the DNA analysis? It seems a bit as if the long lists of arrangements are in vain (in comparison), since they're based on what appears to outdated methods.

The DNA agrees on its closest relatives. And no formal infrageneric classification has been published since all the DNA stuff. Have trimmed some redundant stuff from taxo lists. WIll double check to see what I can get in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Banksia caleyi has had some degree of success in growing in more humid areas, such as Australia's east coast." In the wild? Has it been introduced elsewhere outside West Australia?

Nah, just in gardens. Most WA banksias die quickly when grown in gardens in eastern Australia, but this one is notable in being a bit more hardy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• It seems the image selection is a bit "flower-centric", how about this, showing only leaves, which I guess is more typical of what one would encounter?[4]

The 'cf' to me suggests the photo-taker thinks they probably are caleyi but is not sure. Also, leaves can be seen in File:Banksia caleyi 02.png quite well, I do agree some more diverse shots'd be good. Will scour my computer for habit shots or anything else in a few hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Banksia caleyi is classified as Not Threatened under the Wildlife Conservation Act of Western Australia." Only mentioned in intro.

Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "No subspecies are recognised." Likewise.

Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that was actually sold successfully. The design may not have been all that was desired, but it's still nice and there's a nice little backstory about the towns of Lexington and Concord, such rivals that they apparently had to have different congressmen. I enjoyed researching this one, it's been a long time since high school history ...Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

Support - Only two comments, both nitpicks.

• Gage secretly ordered Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith on April 18, 1775 to go with 700 men to Concord and destroy the munitions there. - The order was issued on April 18, or the expedition was ordered for April 18? Or both?
• He had alluded, in his report, to the well-known Ralph Waldo Emerson poem "Concord Hymn", with the phrase "embattled farmers", a reference which Arkansas's Otis Wingo used as an excuse to deliver a lengthy speech on tariffs, accusing the Republican majority of harming the farmer. - A few too many commas — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Both dealt with. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks great. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. "By the rude bridge that arched the flood ... " I had to learn it though I doubt kids do today (in my mind I hear it being chanted by a classroom of children.)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0390).jpg: source link is dead, and how do we know this was published before 1923 when the date range goes to 1924? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I've swapped it for a user one. Thank you for the review.==Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• What's the latest scholarship on Margaret Gage spying on her husband? That's a pretty major claim and should be cited independently from any numismatics books.

The most recent major source a hasty search is Fischer's Paul Revere Ride (1995), which is cited in the Gage article. A book review I saw of it on JSTOR (2947060) mentioned that Mrs. Gage "may have been" an American spy. I've added it as a source. Seems to be no documentary evidence. His ANB article avoids the question entirely, I'm sure intentionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's supporting a pretty general statement, but why should the History Channel be considered highly RS?

I don't see why not. They're reputable enough, and it's just a general statement of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• When did Dawes and Revere arrive?

The events of Paul Revere's ride are a bit complex, and also I'm trying not to distract the reader with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Gotta agree with Vermeule, not a great design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding one with a Milhist angle. (And thanks for all the other FAs as well, we sorely need them at TFA.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jacob van Ruisdael

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Second attempt for this Dutch 17th century landscape painter. Two months ago I put it up here as my very first FAC. I addressed almost all comments but it was closed before anyone voted Support or Oppose (see archived FAC1). I have since added more references, wikilinked any painting mentioned, and had a native speaker polish the prose (see revisions since first nomination). I welcome your comments and look forward to your votes. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – the visual arts are not my strong suit, but this article seems to me to be comprehensive, well sourced, balanced, in good prose, admirably structured, and of course well illustrated. Two minor comments on prose. First, although the article is written in BrEng, the AmEng "kilometers" has crept it, probably inadvertently. Secondly, the false title is widely accepted in AmEng, but is disapproved of by BrEng style guides, and this rather tabloidese phrasing is repeatedly, and regrettably, used in various places in the article. I don't press the point. – Tim riley talk 14:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comments and support. I was unaware of false titles being associated with tabloids, and have now, I believe, corrected them all. And good catch on the inadvertent spelling of "kilometer", fixed as well. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• his father Isaack van Ruisdael, his well-known uncle Salomon van Ruysdael, and his cousin, confusingly called Jacob van Ruysdael. - What does "well-known" add to this sentence? It strikes me as a little weaselly.

I believe something should be said to distinguish Salomon from the other two who are minor painters. Salomon was influential and his works are on display in some of the top museums of the world. However, saying all that breaks the flow, so I settled on well-known. Do you maybe have any better ideas?

• A clarifactory footnote would be nice, perhaps. Otherwise "well-known" appears to come out of nowhere. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Isaack van Ruisdael and his uncle Salomon van Ruysdael - Worth removing the family names here?

I kept them because the brothers spell their name differently.

• Jacob's earliest biographer, - Not sure this warrants its own paragraph

Merged it.

• By this time landscape paintings were as popular as history paintings in Dutch households, though at the time of Ruisdael's birth, history paintings appeared far more frequently in Dutch homes. - in Dutch households ... in Dutch homes. I'd nix one or the other

Done.

• a painter whose works have also been confused with Ruisdael's own - since you don't mention any other painters whose works have been confused with Ruisdael's in this paragraph, I don't think "also" is strictly necessary

Done

• Ruisdael requested that he be baptised at the Calvinist Reformed Church in Amsterdam, - Just for my own knowledge: was adult baptism common in the Netherlands at the time?

Fairly uncommon. There were 75,000 Anabaptists in 1640 in a country of nearly 2 million.

• he appeared to live comfortably, - would "he appears to have lived" work better?

Done

• Do we know his cause of death? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. I have not come across any source even speculating about it.

Will be back later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ruisdael expert Slive states that the rarity of prints suggests that Ruisdael considered them trial essays, - We mentioned Slive previously; don't think we need "Ruisdael expert" here

Done

• the Hermitage's most famous Ruisdael, A Wooded Marsh, dated c. 1665, which depicts a primeval scene with broken birches and oaks, and branches reaching for the sky amidst an overgrown pond. - is "most famous" in the source?

The exact words in the source are "About 1665, the famous Swamp, a masterpiece of world landscape painting, ..." None of the other Hermitage paintings described by Kuznetsov there have any such praise. Sokolova, curator of the Hermitage, wrote in her book "one of the most renowned paintings in the Hermitage collection". I think "most famous" is a decent way to describe this concisely, but I am open to suggestions of course.

Hmm... I haven't got any suggestions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Only the Italianate and foreign landscapes are absent from his oeuvre. Slive attributes the four untraceable references to biblical Ruisdaels to his uncle or cousin. - Two questions: How do "foreign landscapes" not fit in with Ruisdael's work, when he painted the Scandanavian forests? I'm not familiar with this classification. Second, what is the connection between the motifs and the biblical references?

I have changed this paragraph a bit to address this. Scandinavian waterfalls is one of the 13 categories. I had failed to say that Stechow's classification pertains to Dutch landscape painting. I have now spelled them all out, having removed the enumeration in the previous sentence. I've nixed the biblical reference.

• Unsurprisingly, - according to whom?

I rephrased it to make clear it's Slive's opinion.

• by general consent, as the pre-eminent landscapist of the Golden Age of Dutch art - comma in the original?

Yes.

• Most recently, - as soon as another transaction occurs, this will date. I'd nix it

Done

• Overall, a very nice read. Mostly nitpicks and suggestions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful comments, Chris. I'm glad you found it a nice read. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Good work. Just a couple comments above — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - Have fixed any issues I saw while re-reading since the first nom. Very well written, high quality sourcing, comprehensive and well structured. Edwin has reacted very positivily to suggestions and am delighted to see the article has advanced so much. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing; can we say in the lead roughly when he made the visit to Germany. This would help delineate his progression. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and edits. I have added the year 1650 to the lead.

A few comments on some of your edits:

• I noticed you have reduced the lead to 3 paragraphs. I personally like a short first paragraph, with only key info. So one that ends at "wide variety of landscape subjects." Is there any benefit of having 3 over 4?
• Your edit "His late work, conducted when he lived and worked in Amsterdam, adding city panoramas and seascapes to his regular repertoire. " is better, but this needs a main verb.

Just do it, why ask. Ceoil (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Did you deliberately take out the waterfalls sentence in the lead or was this a copy paste mistake? With waterfalls featuring so often, and not part of the Dutch landscape, I think it should be mentioned in the lead.

The waterfalls sentence was stuck on to a lead paragraph, apropos of nothing. Put it back if you wish. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• "There is difficulty in attributing of his work," I think "his" might for some readers refer to Hobbema, so "Ruisdael's" would be better. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

fine. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Solid piece of work, on someone who is actually rather difficult to pin down. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod. Thanks for all your guidance and comments during FAC1. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. My issues were all addressed in the prior FAC which closed before I had the chance to formally support. ‑ Iridescent 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bicycle kick

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This is my fourth FAC nomination. The article is about the bicycle kick, which is one of association football's most celebrated skills. It has gone through numerous reviews, including the Guild of Copy Editors (twice) and a couple of GA reviews. I consider that the article covers all major areas of the subject, provides an exceptional narrative about the maneuver and its relevance to association football culture, tactics, and history. A comment in the talk page also pointed out that the article was great at providing the names of various notable figures in the sport's history. The sources are mostly sports books (as this is a sports article). A request has been recently made for a video to be included into the article, but I don't consider that to be a problem for the FAC nomination. In fact, I think this request highlights the high quality of the article (see the version prior to my major work: [5]). I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. I thank in advance all support votes, and kindly request oppose/neutral votes to please provide an opportunity to correct any problems.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment. This is a difficult topic to describe, so you deserve some credit for the attempt and for the clarity of some of the article. I can't support, however, first because the definitions of and delineation of what qualifies as a bicycle kick are not clear. The lead defines it as "a physical move in association football achieved by throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." Surely the ball needs to be mentioned! No-one reading that definition would have much chance of copying the action accurately. This needs a rethink. It continues with "the manoeuvre is named after either the cycling motion or the scissor motion that it resembles". Try cycling with the same movement: the legs go in the wrong direction. The Name section is very international, but I'm not convinced that bicycle=overhead=scissors. The Mark Hughes goal against Spain is mentioned later. Watch it on youtube (or elsewhere) – it doesn't resemble the description in Execution or most of the images on the page. At the very least, the article needs more detail on the differences among these three. On a separate point, what happened with the GA reviews? There appeared to be two happening at the same time, one of which was completed successfully. Did you address Alpinu's points from the first review? EddieHugh (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Response

What an interesting comment! Let me respond to what I find to be the major points in your comment:

• Mentioning the ball is an improvement. I added a mention of it here: [6]. Most of the literature on the topic emphasizes the motion, rather than the ball. Players can perform bicycle kicks without striking the ball, generally to much ridicule (and usually to some minor injury).
• The second sentence refers to the name, which the body of the article proceeds to explain. Also, I think it is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a manual; if the reader wants to become a master of the bicycle kick, the article provides enough sources and external links to help an aspiring Pele reach his or her dreams. The article's lead section is also a summary of the information in the body of the text, so it is unreasonable for a reader to expect being fully capable of executing a bicycle kick (one of association football's most difficult and dangerous moves) from just reading the introduction.
• About the bicycle kick=overhead=scissors, I added a sentence to further explain what is found in the literature: [7]. The literature on the topic predominantly places all of them as the same, and even those sources that distinguish them (such as Witzig) indicate the only difference is in the angle of the maneuver.
• Alpinu's GA review was done in bad faith and without following the GA criteria. The user was given over a week to improve their review according to the GA guidelines, but Alpinu refused to do so. You can read more about the problem at the GA archives (see [8]), or you can also ask senior GA participants Cordless Larry and Wugapodes. Moreover, I consider to have addressed all of the points raised by Alpinu, even the one about flipping the alphabetical order of a sentence because he wanted the term chilena to be presented before the term chalaca.

Thanks for the comment, Eddie! Please let me know if you have any further thoughts.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to give a brief overview of the GA reviews for those wondering. It's uncommon but not unheard of for a reviewer to do a review out of line with the GA criteria (that's why WP:What the Good article criteria are not exists). Marshal raised their concerns on the GA talk page and they were discussed. The general feeling of participants was that the review was unfair, so Marshal would be best off closing and resubmitting. Not wanting it to languish longer because of a bad review (it can take well over a month for a GA review to start), I offered to do a new one immediately. This isn't uncommon, as there's no minimum wait period to resubmit, and a new review is generally faster than reviewing an unfair decision. I hope that answers some questions, and best of luck to you Marshal! Wugapodes (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. Thank you for taking the time to write this explanation. I appreciate it a ton! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

I was pleased to see an article about this iconic move here at FAC. I had the football bible The ball is round within arm's length when I saw your nomination. Thank you for bringing it here, as a result I've spent a good ole time on youtube watching the greatest overhead kicks. As for my comments, my main concerns are twofold:

1: I like the content but not the organisation of it. I found it puzzling and think it makes the whole article come across as rambling on. For example, the whole article is basically about multiple claims to invention, so why end with a subsection called Controversy? Another example, .. is in Invention but the similar sentence is in the Diffusion section, and another similar sentence is in Acclaim. I am not 100% sure how to fix it, but something needs to be done. Maybe list all claims, ordering them by time/country. And then round it off with various conclusions from sport historians who investigated the matter.

2: The actual move needs a better description. In the lead it says "throwing the body up into the air and making a shearing movement with the legs in order to get one leg in front of the other without resting on the ground." This doesn't capture the essence for me. It misses out that the foot is higher than the head when it hits the ball, and misses out the ball goes over the head, kicking it behind the player. See for instance Gardner book p. 144. In the Execution section, it doesn't even mention what is in the lead. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that go through the move step by step.

Detailed comments:

• I am fairly new here at FAC, so more experienced reviewers are better judges, but in my interpretation of the style rules it is only needed to add references in the lead if the content is controversial. I admit there are a few statements that are somewhat controversial, but not to the extent that lawsuits are imminent, and even so, why so many citations in the lead, even for the uncontroversial statement about successful performance [5]? And surely the footnotes can wait till the body of the text? I would not use any citations in the lead.
• "Bicycle kicks are used when players find the acrobatic manoeuvre their best resource." Not sure where in the text this is backed up. I don't agree with it as a statement either, as I have seen the odd case of showboating.
• Why describe defensive before offensive? I would think that they occur more often in attack, although I have no evidence for this. (Actually, with all the stats collected these days, is there nothing published on frequency? I checked The Numbers Game by Anderson & Sally, but nothing sadly.)
• The turn of the 20th century is too ambiguous, see turn of the century. Maybe say "beginning of"
• I think the Diego Costa image is not as good as lead image as the Ruben Mendoza one. Costa's move is partly obscured. Mendoza's move is clear. Plus it being in black and white signals instantly that this is not a modern invention.
• "sculptures, films, and literature" It features in commercials as well, which I think should be mentioned. I'm sure you can find sources. There are many, but Rooney's ad is described [[9]] for instance.
• "through a cross" I would say 'from a cross'
• "enough space to perform it—Peruvian defender César González would allow the ball to pass him" I am not sure I get the connection: how does letting it pass make enough space?
• The caption "British football was the foundation for a uniquely South American style of football, especially in the Río de la Plata region.[24]" this text should be in the body. As a caption it is misleading, because it seems this is a 1895 painting between 2 English clubs. I like the image, but I'm not convinced it is appropriate in this article.
• Perhaps it is possible to reduce the number of parentheses, especially in the Invention section, some don't seem necessary.
• "stevedores" probably deserves to be linked
• "Peruvians and Chileans during these years" It's not clear to me which years these are, better to spell it out
• "first performed the bicycle kick outside Western South America in matches in Argentina and Spain" Again, when was this?
• "During the first editions of the South American Championship" Again, which year?
• "It was also around this time that, in Brazil, .. " This whole paragraph here puzzles me. It's not clear why this is in the Diffusion section, as it starts with a Brazilian with local fame and ends with yet another claimed inventor.
• "received numerous Argentine, Uruguayan, and Brazilian footballers" Is received the right word?
• "During this time, one of the first notable" Again, which years?
• "despite his appearance" is unnecessarily mysterious if you don't elaborate in what way his appearance was at odds with being fine instinctive. It may be better not to mention this at all
• any reason why tiro de chalaca is in italics but "a la Piora" in quotes?
• I would make all of Leônidas da Silva a link
• The source [10] says that Leonidas said himself at the end of his life he was not the inventor. That is significant info I think.
• "The majority of the goals" is at odds with the earlier statement that he only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick
• "Italy won the 1938 World Cup, according to sports historian David Goldblatt's, with a nucleus of Argentine-born players.[56] The influx of South American footballers ended before the Second World War" This seems out of place, should be with the previous paragraph about Italy. Although one could argue it is not needed at all in an article about the bicycle kick.
• "Doug Ellis, President Emeritus of English club Aston Villa, claims" should be claimed
• "Due to the lack of new developments in British football at the time, this last claim is unlikely to be true" First of all, by saying this one is not true, you are inferring all the others are true. Secondly, the logic seems a bit odd to me, somehow it is a fact that there are no new developments and thus the bicycle kick could not have been invented?
• I am not sure why the 1st paragraph of Acclaim is in the Acclaim section and not in one of the earlier sections
• Goal of the Century: maybe add that that goal was a long solo, to ensure it isn't thought to be a bicycle kick
• "match between Argentina and England" Argentina should be a wikilink the first time mentioned, not here
• "Sweden and England" England should have been linked earlier. Check other links as well: Only first occurrence should be a link.
• Rooney: it was significant that the goal was in the Manchester derby
• "injuries": it should say whose kick it was, Tueart's, it's too generic now, and reader is likely to think it is Lake's
• Why is Balotelli in the culture section?
• "best overhead and scissors kicks" why not use bicycle kick?
• Why are the Huhes and Oblitas kicks in culture section and not with the Sanches, Rooney, etc kicks?
• "The Uruguayan novelist " I'm not sure why this is part of the same paragraph as the sculptures
• "Spanish edition " This makes it look as if in the English translation it is different. Is it? Simpson & Hesse don't say so.
• "According to a FIFA report, bicycle kicks are common in beach soccer" I don't think this sentence adds anything. Just add the source to previous sentence.
• The "See also" links seem, apart from the history one, rather random. I think the article can easily do without this section. At the very bottom are category links to related articles, those suffice.
• Footnote A: Gardner also distinguishes between the two, see page 148. I'm not sure the footnote is the right place, I think a case could be made to mention it in the body of the article
• "HMS Amphion arrived to Callao" maybe at Callao?
• Footnote F. I think this should be in the maiin text, not footnotes. Especially since these are reports from people not from Peru or Chile.
• Footnote G. Again, consider lifting it out of the footnotes, as it is quite important info.
• Bibliography: Freire & Ribeiro 2006 is missing
• Bibliography : Pele and Fish is 2007 I believe, not 2013
• Glanville, Brian (2010). No reference pointing to this book
• reference 62: Pelé 2006, The Beautiful Game. page numbers missing
• Cunha, Loris Baena (1994 and Rull, Nomdedeu (2004) and a few others could use a translated title
• Inconsistent ISBN format. Most are ISBN 13 but a few are ISBN 10. Easy to convert them here: http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter

I hope this is not too daunting to fix. I'd love to see it featured on the home page one day. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Response

Hi Edwin! Thank you for the thorough review of the article. One of the reasons I love the FAC process is reading input from other researchers/writers/editors. I am genuinely grateful for all of the time you put into helping improve the article!

I'll respond to the major comments first and then to the specific ones:

1. The subsection on controversy highlights the popular culture aspect of it in South America. The perspectives provided there include that of aficionados, researchers, football administrators, and even football players. The current organization of the article follows a narrative structure that is better than a list. The article itself isn't about claims to invention, rather it is about the spread of the bicycle kick, the public's fascination with it, and the relative obscurity of the move that (even in the second half of the twentieth century) led to people claiming certain players as "inventors" (which is more of an honorific title than a reality); I purposely mentioned those in the article to show how the public reacted to the display of the maneuver.

I think mass media has helped make the move more visible. When writing the article, I placed myself in the eyes of these viewers seeing the bicycle kick for the first time. I think it is the same experience moviegoers had when they saw Pele do it in Escape to Victory.

2. Here is another improvement to the lead sentence based on the suggestions ([11]). Here is another one with the "above head level" suggestion ([12]).

I'll comment on the rest later on.

Thanks again for the suggestions! Happy New Year!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Further response

• Execution description: Improved. [13]
• Best resource: Removed. [14]
• Defensive/Offensive: Does it really matter which one goes first? I also can't find stats on it; I've seen it used a lot in South American football as a defensive move (mainly for showboating, but still a defensive move).
• Turn of the century. Changed. [15]
• Title image switch: Done. [16]
• Commercial ads: Done. [17]
• Enough space. The Gonzales example was not translating correctly, so I just made it more straightforward. [18]
• British football image. Image improved (more relevant to the text) [19]
• Reducing parentheses. Done. [20]
• Wikilinking stevedores. Done. [21]
• Clarification on dates. Done. [22]
• Is received the right word? I don't know. If you have a better alternative, please let me know.
• Piola's apperance. Fixed. [23]
• A la piola quote consistency Done. [24]
• Leonidas not inventor. That's not the point. Leonidas, Piola, Parola, Pele, etc. are not the inventors of the bicycle kick. That's why the invention section is separated from the rest of the narrative. The attribution of invention is more of an honor than a reality in these other cases.
• Pele goals. It's not that he actually only scored 2 or 3 times with a bicycle kick. He's just trying to say that the amount of times were few compared to the other goals he scored. Fixed. [25]
• Italy 1938. Fixed. [26]
• Doug Ellis. I blame the confusion and odd logic on Wilson. It should be fixed now. I think his point is that British football had yet to adapt many of the developments made in other parts of the football world. [27]
• Acclaim first paragraph. The prior section ends with the South American players ending their migration. The acclaim section focuses on the story since then.
• Argentina and England. Argentina's national football team is first mentioned here.
• Sweden and England. Fixed. [28]
• Manchester derby. Mentioned. [29]
• Best bicycle kicks: Moved and fixed. [30]
• Tueart: Added. [31]
• Balotelli: Clarified that this was during his youth years. [32]
• Beach soccer: Improved. [33]
• Sculpture and writings: I associate the two as works of art, so I placed them in the same paragraph. Yes, it seems that Vargas Llosa only mentions this in the Spanish edition (unless I missed it when reading the English version, which is unlikely).
• Footnote A: Done. [34]
• Footnote F & G: These work best as footnotes. There's no reason to overwhelm the readers with these details in the main text. They also would detract from the narrative flow.
• At Callao: Done. [35]
• Freire & Ribeiro: Fixed. [36]
• Pele Fish 2007: Fixed. [37]
• Pele 2006: Page numbers not included, so next-best alternative is the chapter title.
• Glanville 2010: Fixed. [38]
• Translating titles: Done. [39]
• ISBN 13 standardizing: Done. [40]

@Edwininlondon: I've fixed nearly everything that you pointed out, but did disagree with a few suggestions. I hope the minor disagreements are not considered a challenge or a cause for dispute, because I do wholeheartedly consider the article now looks and reads much, much better thanks to your suggestions. Please let me know your thoughts. Again, thanks for the improvements; you're the best!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Kareldorado

I will go over the entire text, sentence by sentence, and at the end I will try to give feedback about the article as a whole.

Intro:

1. I would split the first sentence in two: "... physical move in association football achieved by throwing ... " -> "... physical move in association football. It is achieved by throwing ..."

Section Name:

1. Instead of "three names: the bicycle kick, the overhead kick, and the scissors kick" rather "three names: bicycle kick, overhead kick, and scissors kick"
2. At the sentence "The manoeuvre is also called an "overhead kick", which (according to football instructors Klaus Bischops and Heinz-Willi Gerards) refers to.. " I would either drop the ( ) symbols, either everything within the ( ).

Section Execution:

1. Instead of "Not only does the performer need to maintain good form when executing the move, but must simultaneously exhibit exceptional accuracy and precision when striking the ball." I would suggest "... when executing the move; he must simultaneously ..."
2. At "... when a player facing his side's goal uses the action to clear the ball in the direction opposite his side's goalmouth ...", I think it is clear enough when you say "opposite direction" instead of "direction opposite his side's goalmouth"

History, subsect Invention:

1. For more concise writing in " ...they find that separating fact from fiction is possible when searching available records and that truth is more satisfying than legend." I would suggest "they think reconstructing the true history is possible, and that it is to be preferred over the legend."
2. Perhaps "." instead of ";" to split this long sentence: "According to Chilean journalist Luis Osses Guíñez (author of Talcahuano's football history), Unzaga's first recorded bicycle kick occurred in 1918, as documented by a civil law notary report filed after a heated match between Talcahuano and neighbouring Concepción turned violent; Unzaga, described by Osses Guíñez as a hot-tempered Basque, got into a fistfight with a referee who called a foul on the player's bicycle kick."

... to be continued ...

Kareldorado (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Karel! Thank you for the improvement suggestions. I applied most of them (see [41]). The sentences in the execution section were heavily worked on by copy-editors, and I would prefer to leave them as they are at the moment.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Briarcliff Farms

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this article out of interest for what preceded Briarcliff Manor, New York, and what Walter William Law was so devoted to for much of his life. I was very surprised to find more information on the farm than I probably had about the village itself; the farm was incredibly well documented in its time. I found plenty of photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of the farm and its history. After reaching Good Article status and going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my fifth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19, 2014 TFA Briarcliff Manor, the next two were for the July 25, 2015 TFA Elliott Fitch Shepard. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry is this about the land or the business as its not clear, its moves around and focuses on the land then on business then on the land and back to the business again. Personally it needs a POV either business or land because as it is I got lost in the story you were trying to tell and stopped reading. On the written side this Law's farm had 500 workers, cattle, pigs, chickens, Thoroughbred horses, pheasants, peacocks and sheep at its peak.[16] - mixed capitals, really were workers in the same count as cattle pigs etc I think it needs a bit more work for FA. Gnangarra 05:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: I'm sorry you feel that way; the topic is very complex, and it is difficult to arrange the information so everyone thinks it's in the proper order. I could've done it chronologically, but seeing as there were so many changes from 1890 to 1968, and many details of the farm aren't pinpointed to specific years, that would be difficult. So it's arranged with some history, but the bulk of the material is in the farm's locations and its operations. Do you recommend I move the School of Practical Agriculture information to a new article? Would it meet notability guidelines in a separate article? And yes, workers were included with the other animals in the source material; I don't think that's too weird or important enough to change. I also don't see where you're going with by saying 'mixed capitals', are you referring to 'Thoroughbred', which is always capitalized? So please give me some clearer recommendations about how you feel this article could be clearer or read better. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ɱ: sorry for the delay I spent a while considering how to address the confusion I had while reading the article, I think that the History section and Location sections could be combine into one chronological section. Gnangarra 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: That's fine, I'm actually rather busy myself. As for merging, I can't see any possible way of doing that without making a mess of things. Both sections are pretty long as they are; why combine them to make one that'll be far too long? Plus it's probably easier to understand the farm's size, operations, and other details related to its different locations with this location section. You'd have to hunt through the history section to find that if they were to be merged. Do you have any other comments or suggestions? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations

Sonam Kapoor

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sonam Kapoor is an Indian actress, working in Bollywood films. She, not as successful as her contemporaries, is known more for her dresses than her roles and films, which are not quite entertaining and most of them have failed commercially. In the meanwhile, she has starred in some of the films -- such as Raanjhnaa and the recent Prem Ratan Dhan Payo -- which might be remembered for a short period of time.

I nominated the article some months ago but failed due to some reservations about prose and neutrality. It was recently copy-edited by WP:GOCE and peer reviewed. Please note that an image review was done in its peer review. I would like to see comments on how I can further improve the article. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – All my concerns were addressed during its previous nomination and the peer review. Hopefully it'll pass this time. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comments:
• Remove Strdust Awards from the lead.
• Remove Sooraj Barjatya's name from the lead.
• Add info in the lead about her fashion choices, she is more notable for being fashionable star than an actress. But you dont need to make her look bad. Just add a line about her being one of the fashionable stars in Bollywood.Krish | Talk 14:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krish!: Thanks very much for the comments, much appreciated. I have taken care of them in its entirety. -- Frankie _talk 15:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Despite being a box-office failure, Saawariya earned Kapoor" and "Nevertheless, she received her third nomination for Best Actress at the Filmfare Awards." The text should be exchanged with each other because one can get a nomination despite failure, and it's not wierd; But, getting a nomination for a panned performance is. The latter projects the reviewers in bad light.
• Information about her personality (outsopken), and few quotes for her style should be added in her Media image section. That's all.Krish | Talk 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I knew this would come up. There were quite a lot of information about her "outspoken" personality and style in this revision but they were the main reason for the failure of its previous nomination as a few reviewers thought they border WP:PUFFERY. -- Frankie _talk 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just saw that. It's sad that so many important information were removed. However, you can re-add them (minus fluff). Let me look at it.Krish | Talk 19:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: The article meets all the criteria. Plus, now with re-addition of important information, the article seems brilliant. Well done Frankie.Krish | Talk 20:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, support and re-addition of the personal life "stuff" but please note that I didn't remove but merged them to the "Life and career" section. And as for the media image section, I liked the changes you made. I just removed some quotes and did some trimming so that reviewers don't complain about its neutrality. Thanks for your time, Krish! -- Frankie _talk 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 Pan American Games opening ceremony

Nominator(s): Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the opening ceremony of the 2015 Pan American Games, the largest multi-sporting event held in Canada.Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 25 in Michigan

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a highway that no longer exists in Michigan, at least not under a single designation. All of what was US 25 in Michigan is still maintained by the state, but under other names. This is one of the only places online to collect all of these pieces of information about the highway in one place, and I think it's the highest quality compilation you'll find. Imzadi 1979 → 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Aso of note, the article just received an A-Class Review, which included an image review and source review. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed the article at the A-class review and believe it meets the FA criteria. --Rschen7754 17:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I also reviewed the article at ACR and too feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 18:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Monroe Edwards

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a forger, slave smuggler and general all around scoundrel. He came to my attention from George Wilkes, who is probably the author of the contemporary but highly-sensationalized account of Edwards' "exploits" in the mid-1800s. We've polished the prose, dug into every source that we could find, and then polished again. Initial polishing was done by Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), but John (talk · contribs) has helped a bunch also, along with assists from Karanacs (talk · contribs) for the background of Texas history. I present to you Monroe Edwards, another bad-boy, but this time a bad-boy American and not a bishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited, and I note the following things:

• I would add OCLC numbers for books where ISBN is not available.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• In the Wilson citation, "Bartleby" should probably be in single quotes rather than double.
  • done Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Welcome back and Happy New Year. I'll try to get back and do a full review but timing is uncertain.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Acdixon

Comments OK, a Kentuckian. I'm game. Lead:

• I don't love the wording "who was the subject of a famous trial in 1842". First, "famous" is a bit subjective. I think "well-publicized" could be better. However, the whole phrase could probably be rewritten. Just saying he was the subject of the trial kind of makes the reader wonder if he was convicted or not. Also, the publicity derived, at least in part, from an all-star defense team, but that isn't mentioned here.
  • I've added "well-publicized trial and conviction" in place of "famous trial". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• The word "swindle" is used pretty often in the lead. Maybe consider alternatives, since swindling isn't a specific crime like, say, embezzlement.
  • Varied.
• "Convicted partly because of his good looks". I think this needs to be reworded. Maybe "Convicted partly because his distinctive good looks made him memorable and easily recognizable", or something like that. As worded, at almost reads as though the good looks were criminal or at least an aggravating circumstance to a crime! :)
  • took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Early life

• "Edwards was born in 1808 in Danville, Kentucky." Note that Ms. Chapman Coleman's biography of John J. Crittenden says "Monroe Edwards was a Kentuckian, his parents were from Logan County, where he [Edwards] was born, and where Mr. Crittenden commenced the practice of law." (p. 97) I realize that, with few details of his early life, this will be hard to verify, but this could be an important detail, as Coleman says Crittenden agreed to defend Edwards because of his friendship with Edwards' parents, presumably formed during their mutual time in Logan County, which is, incidentally, a long way from Danville.
  • I wouldn't use Coleman's biography as a source for Crittenden's article, so I would also not use it here. To be honest, that's from 1873 - and outdated. If there was not other information on his birth location from more recent scholarship (i.e. the American Dictionary of National Biography article) then I might consider something from 1873 - but given the much more recent treatment that disregards Coleman's information, I am good with ignoring an 1873 biography. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, if the more recent scholarship is definitive on the subject, I guess I'm OK with ignoring this. BTW, I did use Coleman's biography as a source in Crittenden's article, which is a featured article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Around 1822, Edwards was sent to New Orleans" By his parents, presumably?
  • None of the sources say who sent him. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• "to learn business from a Mr. Morgan, a merchant there". Simplify to "a merchant there named Mr. Morgan".
  • Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• "but in 1823 Edwards' father moved to Galveston Island" Not sure how these thoughts are connected. If the younger Edwards was already away from home in New Orleans, why does this move by his father matter?
  • It was in the source but I agree it's not useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• "By the late 1820s Morgan set up a trading post on San Jacinto Bay near Galveston." Which Edwards? Father or son?
  • Son. this should be clearer now that we've excised the mention of the father in the previous sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Edwards was arrested in 1832 as part of the Anahuac Disturbances". Maybe add a descriptive phrase about these events, for those who are unfamiliar and do not click through.
  • Now reads "was briefly imprisoned along with others during the uprising against the Mexican government which ruled Texas."

Slave trading and forgery

• How is the explanatory information about slave traders and indentured servants relevant to Edwards? The Mexican crackdown on long indentures happened in 1832 and Dart and Edwards' activities appear not to have occurred until 1835.
  • It was requested by a previous reviewer as background for people unfamiliar with the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I find it a little distracting, since it didn't have any material impact on Edwards' schemes. I'm going to leave this to see what others think. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm confused about the plot to discredit Dart and Texas. What was the nature of the plot? We know he obtained money under false pretenses, but what did he actually intend to do with it? Were the exploits in England also intended to gain money for this as-yet-unstated purpose, or were they not connected?
  • It's not clear why he did the efforts - it's just not given in the sources. Edwards is still a bit of a mystery in some respects. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That's disappointing, as it would be interesting to know what he was up to, but it's understandable that it isn't in the sources. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Why is the amount extracted from Lord Spencer given in pounds, but the amount of Edwards' defrauding of a Liverpool company in the next sentence given in (presumably) American dollars?
  • That's what my source used. Rather than try to convert I stuck with what the source gave as the amount. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Is there an accepted way to convert one to the other, accounting for the economics of Edwards' day versus ours? If so, it might be worth at least a footnote. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know of one - I had conversions in the article but was told that they weren't accurate for capital sums - so I'd be hesitant to convert this either. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Final scheme

• "Unluckily for Edwards" Is this editorial comment necessary?
  • NOt really but it's not like it's egregiously awful here either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, I typically wouldn't use something like this, but I won't quibble about it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I can't think of a good way to bridge between this sentence and the preceeding one without some sort of comment on the utter bad luck he had with this being caught - suggestions on better wording? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Trial

• "media marvel" Is this the best term we can find?
  • I'm open to other suggestions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Is this a term in one of the sources, or one you chose? If the latter, in what respect are you considering it "marvelous"? That might help find a better descriptor. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I honestly can't remember if it came verbatim from the source, if I paraphrased it from the source, or if this wording is from one of the copyeditors along the way. I got the source through ILL so I'm not sure I can easily get a hold of it again. I probably copied the relevant sections (that's my usual practice) but we're packing to move and I have no idea where those photocopies might be lurking. The trial was very well covered in the newspapers - think of an early-day O. J. Simpson trial and that's the general idea you get from the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Understand about ILL. I run into that all the time. I think "media sensation" might sound better to my ears, but that's a style thing. Your call. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Sensation works for me also - changed to that. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• "while it took place" Shouldn't this be assumed?
  • Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe mention the Edwards' family's connection to Crittenden here.
  • None of the recent sources mention such a connection - if a recent biography of Crittenden does, then yeah, I'm good with it, but I don't trust a 1873 biography that isn't corroborated by more recent scholarship. (I'm a hobbyist genealogist and I'm well aware how often authors from the Victorian period got facts wrong.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, the best modern biography of Crittenden (of which I'm aware) is Kirwan's John J. Crittenden: The Struggle for the Union, which doesn't mention the Edwards incident at all. (This in itself is a bit strange to me.) Still, Coleman's assertion seems to be at least plausible. Otherwise, what would motivate a sitting U.S. Senator – especially one of Crittenden's stature – to defend someone who seems to have been pretty obviously guilty? Also, Crittenden mentored Marshall, which would explain how he got involved. Finally, Coleman attributes the connection to William Evarts, another member of Edwards' defense team. Isn't all that worthy of at least a footnote? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Again, this comes back to not using an 1873 biography when there are more recent biographies available for Crittenden. If they don't mention Edwards' connection to Crittenden - we shouldn't use such an old source. Coleman is Crittenden's daughter but the information she's relaying about Edwards is related in regards to events over 20 years before and it's not clear where she got the information. She may be speculating on why her father took the case - and making up some sort of early connection. The fact that modern accounts of Edwards give a completely different county for his origin make Coleman's account much more suspect - Logan County is along the border with TN in the western part of Kentucky and Danville's up in Boyle County in the center of the state near the bluegrass. It's not a case of neighboring counties ... it's quite a distance. One thing I've noticed with Edwards' life - there is little family mentioned in connection with him - even the name of his father is unclear. It comes down to ... yes, if you wanted to use Coleman for color in Crittenden's biography, that makes sense - the daughter is going to have some comments on his character/appearance/etc that are relevant. But that doesn't make her not a problematic source for other people (I guess I should have said I wouldn't use her for a biography of Evarts - since I'm hoping you used her with Crittenden mainly as a daughter, and not as a historian.). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • OK, I'm trained in computer science, not history, so I'll defer to your judgment here, I guess, although if it were an article I were composing, I'd probably at least include it as a footnote, qualified with the appropriate reservations about Coleman as a source. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the mentions of Crittenden and Marshall's absence from Congress immediately follow mention of their presence on the defense team? Why interpose mention of Evarts?
  • Rearranged as suggested. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• "absented themselves" Is it common to use "absent" as a verb?
  • Yes, it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Melville has a character refer to Edwards and ask Bartleby, then imprisoned in the Tombs, if Bartleby is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards." I think "has" is a weak verb here. Maybe rewrite as "One of Melville's characters asks Bartleby, the imprisoned in the Tombs, if he is a "gentleman forger" like Edwards".
  • Yeah, that's a better wording, changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• "The account, which was probably written by George Wilkes, is the fullest account of Edwards' life, but mingles fact with fiction to the extent that it has been listed in bibliographies of American fiction." Who opines that the work was written by Wilkes, and are there contrary opinions? Who lists the book as fiction? Does anyone list it as nonfiction?
  • I've not run across a person who disagrees with Wilkes' having written it - including several Wilkes' biographers. The other bit is from the ADNB and it isn't qualified by numbers - just a statement that it has been listed, not how many do so. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If we're not aware of any dissenting opinions, is it necessary to qualify Wilkes' authorship? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, the authorship was listed as not by him and I'm not aware that he ever did claim to have written it (and given it's rather ... sensationalist tone, I'd have wanted to avoid claiming authorship too!). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • OK, I wasn't aware of the nature of the piece, so that makes sense. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• " a slave who loved Edwards and rescued him and followed him throughout his life" Rescued him when? How?
  • Not stated, as this is one of those legendary elements introduced into the story that has been disproven by historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If the legend has been disproven, why isn't that mentioned (and cited) in the article? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • The best way to describe this is Thompson's entry in the ADNB when discussing the whole work "The fullest account of Edwards's life is Life and Adventures of the Accomplished Forger and Swindler, Colonel Monroe Edwards (1848), written by an editor of the National Police Gazette, presumably George Wilkes. Its account of Edwards's criminal career is largely verifiable, but other aspects of the book led it to be included in Lyle Wright's standard bibliography of American fiction. It is the chief source for the romantic story of Kitty Clover, a beautiful slave who rescued Edwards from arrest in Texas and followed him devotedly through his later hardships and successes, until his arrest." I've read bits and pieces of "LIfe and Adventures" but it's ... wow. Very very early Victorian and very very much a pot-boiler with heavy romance elements thrown in. Kinda like a version of Uncle Tom's Cabin but with a forger as the hero instead. Since Thompson only mentions Kitty in the bottom where he discusses the Life and Adventures - and the Handbook of Texas doesn't mention her at all, I don't think it merits any mention beyond what's there. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • So no one says it is explicitly disproven; you're just making that inference based on its absence from more reliable scholarship? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I make that inference here - I don't in the article, you'll notice. The statement about Kitty Clover is bare bones and reflects the secondary scholarship's mention of her (which is the mention I described above from the ADNB). She's not mentioned in any of the other secondary sources, which is why I don't think we need to go into the details of Kitty's story - the secondary sources don't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I know information is scarce, and some of these issues might not be resolvable. Just food for thought. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I"ve attempted to address most of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And ... I hope I haven't tread too badly on your Kentucky toes! It was a very strange subject for me to get interested in but .. interested I got. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Just making some comments for thought. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Panggilan Darah

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Owing to RL concerns (babies, school, work, the usual) I haven't been able to write nearly as much as I've wanted to this past year. I'm hoping to fix that this holiday with another colonial Indonesian film article. This time I bring you Panggilan Darah, a 1941 production starring Dhalia and Soerip. It casts the two as orphans who are struggling to get by, working as maids and later at a clove cigarette factory. The article is well-written, and the images are free. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "J. B. Kristanto" or "J.B. Kristanto" is fine, as long as spacing with initials is consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The article as-is is excellent; I'm really trying hard to find any nitpicks. Mostly, I'm interested in a few hits I see on Google Scholar (I see one of your pieces is there, so I suspect there's little I can add!).

• Have you taken a look at Charlotte Setijadi-Dunn and Thomas Barker's "Imagining “Indonesia”: Ethnic Chinese Film Producers in Pre-Independence Cinema"? There's at least a passing mention of this film. It's from a special issue on Indonesian cinema which may be a treasure-trove of information for you. I don't personally have access to an online version, but I think (the listings aren't fully reliable...) I can access the hardcopy, if necessary. (But I'll not be at the library for a couple of weeks.)
  • I've got the Indonesian-language edition of that journal (actually got it from Barker himself, at a Wikimedia Indonesia/University of Indonesia event). I'll take a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Just listed in the bibliography. Nothing on the film itself; the focus of the article is on Kris Mataram. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• How's your French? Another special issue on Indonesian cinema, and another mention, here.
  • Rusty, but passable. I'll have a look. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Alright, from my reading Ramadhan and Biran are writing that Dhalia made her debut in Panggilan Darah, but never gained the popularity of Titien Sumarni (yes, I know that's a redlink, but my mid-1950s film magazines feature one or more stories on her a month) and never became a major star. Important for her article, but maybe only worth a footnote here. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I defer to your judgement! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Soerono, writing in Pertjatoeran Doenia dan Film" This is a bit alien to me. Who is this? What kind of publication is this?
  • Done. Added a footnote with more detail, as I doubt he'd be worth an article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Biran surmised that" Is "surmised" really what you mean here?
  • Wrote. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps you could add some appropriate redlinks? Some of the film companies/films you mention but do not link might be worth linking to?
  • Did a couple. Not linking any names though, per WP:REDLINK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that none of these comments require large changes, but they may help round out the article nicely. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I've commented above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Support; no further comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Very nicely done. Just a few comments:

• "as well as at the Nitisemito cigarette factory in Kudus and a batik factory in Pekalongan owned by Tan Jauw Lin" unclear if one or two factories owned by Tan. Can the word "factory" be varied?

• How's this? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Further roles" maybe "Additional roles"

• Agree. Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• "and praised Soerip's spontaneity in her role.[10] Biran wrote that lower-class audiences praised the film's music" perhaps too much of a praise chorus.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Short but sweet. Just a few nitpicks:

• "the colonial capital of Batavia (now Jakarta)" Maybe you could rephrase this a bit to avoid any confusion for those who don't know what Batavia was. Maybe just a comma instead of "of". Plus I would link Batavia as well.
  • Last I checked we didn't have an article on Batavia itself - Apparently, that's changed. Linked now. Not sure eliminating "of" helps, as we'd end up with two commas and two parentheses in short succession. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Dhalia and Soerip (themselves) " Maybe "(played by themselves)" would be more clear
• "Ishak (Mochtar Widjaja). Although initially elated, they find that Iskak's" Is it hak or kak?
  • Good catch. Fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Unable to recoup its expenses, by 1941" that reads a bit odd as all we know is that it is a 1941 film. Did filming, releasing, and folding all happen in a matter of months? And then Suska directs another movie that same year?
  • Nixed the 1941s. Pertjatoeran Doenia dan Film doesn't go into much detail as to when this merger/sale of assets occurred, and the year of release of Ratna Moetoe Manikam is not clear. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• should the statement "J. B. Kristanto's Katalog Film Indonesia (Indonesian Film Catalogue) records several as having survived at Sinematek Indonesia's archives" not have a source and could that catalogue be added to the cited works list?
  • Done and done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that last bit about Japanese propaganda films is relevant, even when knowing the Japanese occupied the Indies.
  • It's meant to be illustrative of the fact that there are several different types of films which are known to be extant, as opposed to Heider's claims otherwise. It is also meant to hint that some films survive in the Netherlands, be it at NGIS or another institution (this is sadly not in any sources I have available to me). Pareh, for instance, was stored in the Netherlands for ages and is now circulating as a pirated DVD in Jakarta. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Works cited: 2 of the 3 instances of Biran, Misbach Yusa are linked. One probably suffices.
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• That "untitled" looks a bit odd. I think that if you use the title "Cinemas" for reference to the ad in Algemeen Indisch Dagblad de Preangerbode, maybe this one could be "Sun talkies"?
  • That works, done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, nitpicks. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review! All done or commented upon. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A fine piece. Good luck! Edwininlondon (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support from me, following my informal PR. Only one further comment from me: I'm not 100% sure, but should 'Indonesian for "Call of Blood"' be "Indonesian for Call of Blood" as it's the title? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Done, per previous FAs. Must have slipped my mind. Thanks for the review! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing yet. I left a note at WT:FAC a while ago, but nada. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll gladly do the honours. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Later: The British Library's copy of the Misbach Biren title has to be be retrieved from storage and will be available on Wednesday. I'll report back here on Wed afternoon GMT if at all possible. Tim riley talk 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks muchly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review – With the kind assistance of a member of staff at the British Library I checked three citations against the Indonesian text of Biran 2009, but hadn't the cheek to ask for any more of his time, and have taken the other refs to the book as read, given that the sample of three was absolutely fine. I have checked references 1, 2, 3, 10a &b, 11, 12, 19 and 21, all of which are impeccable. Happy to give a thumbs-up for the source review. Also, more generally, happy to Support promotion to FA: the article meets all the criteria in my opinion. Tim riley talk 12:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you right kindly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

2012 Gatorade Duels

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2012 Gatorade Duels, two 60-lap qualifying races held at the Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, Florida to determine the starting lineup for the 2012 running of NASCAR's premier auto race, the Daytona 500. The races were won by Tony Stewart and Matt Kenseth respectively. The article was promoted to GA in August 2015 having received a prior copy-edit from the GOCE. This is also the first time that NASCAR qualifying races having been at FAC so this is uncharted territory for this type of auto race. All comments are welcome. Z105space (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Calutron

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the calutron, a spiffy gizmo for magnetic isotope separation. The article has passed GA and A class reviews, which have included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• "His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm..." Snakelike sentence. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ling, I broke it into three sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

• Consider the use of alt text for any images used, so they can be interpreted by screenreaders.

  Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The costs table could be better formatted for the same reason; use !scope="col" and !scope="row" in to define where columns and rows begin. Here is a diff of an example of how to do so.

  Not sure what the benefit it is - it looks the same as before - but done anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  The benefit is, again, for screenreaders, as the definitions allow them to read the table coherently. It means visually-impaired visitors can still benefit from the information in it. GRAPPLE ^X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason why we have inch-to-millimetre conversions? It just seems unusual to see thousands of millimetres given for measurements.

  For some reason, millimetres is the default conversion. It seemed appropriate where we were talking about fractions of an inch, so retained there. Switched to cm for the 184-inch (470 cm) cyclotron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overall this is a very high-quality piece, would be happy to support given the above is addressed. GRAPPLE ^X 10:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE ^X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.

A beautiful article, I have no major complaints, so I had to resort to lots of very minor prose nitpicks:

• Too many California's in this sentence: "Its name was derived from California University Cyclotron, in tribute to Lawrence's institution, the University of California in Berkeley, California, where it was invented." Couldn't the reader infer that the University of California in Berkeley is in fact in California?

  Removed. Just had to make sure there was one mention that it was in Berkeley before referring to it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Should this be in American English since it's mainly about California and Tennessee? "6 August 1945", "25 June 1942", etc. If not, should the measurements use metric first with inches or whatever in parentheses?

  Per WP:STRONGNAT, articles about the 20th century US military use this format. It happens to be thje one the Manhattan Project used consistently. Measurements are in United States customary units. Note however that the US customary unit for fissile materials is metric. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...the heavier isotopes are bent less by the magnetic field..." not the isotopes themselves, but their paths? Beams? Streams? Or not bent but deflected?

  Used "deflected", which is probably the term used in the original source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...he theorized that it was the uranium-235 isotope and not the more abundant uranium-238 that was primarily responsible for fission with thermal neutrons." Does 'primarily' mean that some 238 is also responsible? Or other isotopes too?

  Yes. Natural uranium is 99.275% uranium-238, 0.72% uranium-235 and 0.005% uranium-234. According to the Wikipedia, the thermal neutron cross section for fission of uranium-238 is around 0.00002 barns, while that of uranium-235 is 583 barns. So in layman's terms, you get some, but not a lot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "This made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated..." Why does it follow from the finding that U-235 is responsible that a chain reaction could happen? This seems stilted without more of an explanation. I understand not wanting to get into the nitty gritty so early, but is there a way this could flow better?

  Changed to: Leo Szilard and Walter Zinn soon confirmed that more than one neutron was released per fission, which made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Brilliant. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Uranium-235 makes up only about 0.72% of natural uranium,[14] so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 1250 to produce 90% uranium-235 from natural uranium." These numbers don't mean anything to a lay reader, do we need the specific numbers? The words 'separation factor' make sense in context, but I don't actually know what they mean. If it were like "Uranium-235 makes up only about 1% of natural uranium, and they need it to be 90%, so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 900", I could kind of see where the numbers are coming from and the specificity would make sense. But as is the math makes no sense so it's kind of distracting.

  Yes, but think of the kids who are trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. By giving exact dates and numbers, we give them plenty of room to maneuver. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...which results in the beam scattering." I prefer the active voice to this noun + -ing construction: "which causes the beam to scatter." Same with "resulting in reasonably good beams being produced in September 1942."

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "In December Lawrence received a $400,000 grant from the S-1 Uranium Committee." Is this a military or government committee? Might it help to give a link or a parenthetical about what this group is?

  There is a link to its article, up above when it first appeals. It was a committee of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Replace one instance of 'work' here to reduce repetitiveness: "the process had been demonstrated to work, considerable work was still required"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I know the template does this, but "about 3 feet (0.91 m)" would be more sensible as "about 3 feet (0.9 m)" or "about 3 feet (1 m)" given that the 3 ft is an estimate in the first place, so you don't want to be too exact with the conversion.

  It sure does. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Lawrence's leadership style. His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm were contagious." Hmm, that's one way of putting it, I heard he was a tyrant!

  That too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Transition wording needed to switch from talking about TN to CA: "...training of workers to operate the production facilities at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By the middle of 1944, there were nearly 1,200 people working at the Radiation Laboratory."

  We're not talking about Tennessee. The Radiation Laboratory remained in Berkeley. It's still there today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Ohhh, they were being trained in Berkeley to work in Oak Ridge later. I misunderstood. It seems perfectly clear now that I reread it. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Typo? " a second stage on enrichment."

  Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "special procedures were instituted for handling the silver. Holes were drilled into the silver over paper so that the filings could be collected." This is confusing, I think it means "when they wanted to drill holes, they did it over paper", rather than what it kind of sounds like, that they went out of their way to drill holes.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "handfuls of rust were found inside. Moisture was also a problem" Maybe "also a problem in its own right" or something? It's just that the 'also' sounds redundant because moisture causes rust.

  This is true. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's all I got for now! More in a few days. Sorry to be a total brat about the minutiae. Very nice work! delldot ∇. 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review ∇! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, everything's addressed! Back with more in a couple days. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple more for right now:

• This sentence switched to hyphens from n dashes: "Alpha process buildings, 9201-4 and 9201-5, another Beta, 9204-2". Same with "The two Alpha I buildings, 9201-1 and 9201-2".
• Don't you think the paras beginning "Groves authorized Alpha II in September 1943" should be a table instead? It's TMI to integrate as prose, too hard to follow all the numbers, and repetitive. Anything that's not building, start date, or finish date could be kept as prose.
• That noun -ing construction again (also I have a personal vendetta against 'with' as a conjunction with the present participle): "with S-50 product being fed into K-25 instead."

Back with more soon! delldot ∇. 07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

South Park: The Stick of Truth

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 role playing video game developed by Obsidian Entertainment and based on the long running comedy television show South Park created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The article has been left for a while as I was waiting for any further developments/dlc and the like, but none of that has materialised and now I believe the article to be as complete as can be providing a thorough background to the well-received game that had a somewhat difficult creation cycle. Thanks for reading! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

• Support I've read through the article and I couldn't really find flaws. In the end having "fiftieth" and similar stuff instead of just 50th seems a bit tedious. I am wondering if it is worth mentioning explicitly that the humor follows that of the show really well, including childish jokes like use of "PP" for mana. Nergaal (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Nergaal:, I added a note on the "peepee" thing, and a different user has added a quote from a review stating that it follows the same style of humour as the show. That plus the commentary on how it looks like an episode of the show I think might cover what you're asking. I also changed the fiftieth and similar to the numerical versions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

seventh is probably better. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS

• File:SouthParkTheStickOfTruth.jpg, File:SouthParkTheStickofTruth-GameplayBattle.jpeg, and File:South Park The Stick of Truth Euro Censor.jpg all have appropriate FUR's
• File:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg is properly licensed, though I don't think you need to state that this pic is from 2007

I might come back later on for more, but felt this should be done first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I like to add the year just so people are clear that the image is not to do with the promotion of the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from jfhutson

I'm not inclined to read this article, but I saw two comma errors in the lead:

• "The Stick of Truth '​s production was turbulent, its release date was postponed several times from its initial date in March 2013 to its eventual release in March 2014." Comma splice
• "There was also a change of publisher, following the bankruptcy of THQ, the original publisher." The first comma is not needed. --JFH (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed, I think. Thanks for the input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Overall, very solid. Some comments follow:

• Why are the series of slipped release dates mentioned twice (first in the last part of the Development section, and again in the release?)
• References:
  • Looks like all the refs are archived, good for being proactive.
  • What makes Topless Robot a high-quality reliable source?
  • I've spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 5* (fast travel), 10, 18, 34, 40, 41, 42, 49*, 55, 74, 75, and 83.
    • Ref 5 states: "Well, you'll roam around just like a typical RPG (with fast travel in tow, compliments of Timmy), discover loot, find some quests for your quest log, and complete the main story along the way.", which does not adequately cite the entire statement in the article: "The game features a fast travel system, allowing the player to call on the character Timmy to quickly transport them to any other visited fast travel station". I would fix this and double-check the rest of the gameplay section for these sorts of source-stretching; it's difficult to fact-check each statement throughout this article because you are often citing long stretches to multiple sources.
    • Sources 74 and 75 conflict, with one saying there were six scenes censored and the other saying seven.

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

1. With the release dates, my thought process is that the Development section talks about the kind of the behind-the-scenes reasons and is more focused while the release section talks more about the public knowledge of release dates, and things like the delay only being known when Ubisoft omitted it from its release schedule. If I'm wrong though let me know and I can try to integrate it more into the development section.
2. Topless Robot is owned by Village Voice Media so it does have oversight by a legitimate company that owns multiple news outlets.
3. I've added an additional clearer source for the Timmy fast travel (bonus, it contains information about characters in the game I was struggling to find, so thanks for making me look)
4. Did the same for the censorship conflict, more sources said seven were censored so I added an additional ref to back that up and moved the Guardian away from backing that particular claim up.
5. Aside: I will go through the article and review multiple refs for single statements. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Has there been any discussion about the reliability solely focused on Topless Robot? I'm hesitant to consider it high quality just because of its parent company. As for the release dates, I think it's fine to mention earlier in the development, but it's pointless to restate the exact dates; you can just say earlier that the release date slipped and leave the hard dates for later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No discussion that I know of. They do have a privacy policy dictated by the parent company but that's all I can see here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed the Development release dates to ", pushing its release date back by six months to March 2014."Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you just remove the questionable source? It seems like most of the content is cited to other better sources anyhow, so as long as it doesn't leave something orphaned source-wise it shouldn't suffer for lack of it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rejoined

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa

This episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine features one of the first televised lesbian kisses, and was pretty controversial back in its day. Article has gone through a pretty thorough GAN and PR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake

Generally a good read. Just some things that I noticed scanning through, as well as looking through the references.

• Tim Ryan and James Noah are red links. This needs fixing: either find their articles are their current locations or remove the links.

• I've removed those redlinks. I just did a double check to see if there was any obvious information out there which would mean that an article could be created in the future and apart from the stubbiest of stubs (a short filmography from each which even then wouldn't be simple to cite) I don't think that an article could be realistically created. So I've removed the links rather than create a stub for each. Miyagawa (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...where joined hosts never met anyone that they didn't already know." - Replace "didn't" with "did not" per MOS.

• Fixed. Sorry, bad habit I'm trying to get out of. Shame we can't get Data to proof read these! ;) Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Ira Steven Behr in the context of this show's production? Never heard of them.

• I've now linked showrunner immediately prior to his first mention, as while it was stated there, it wasn't linked. Behr was the executive producer in charge of the series (the showrunner). Miyagawa (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...saying that "Star Trek stood for" making statements such as seen in "Rejoined"." - The quote in this sentence seems very short. Could you explain this?

• It is a snippet from a much larger quote from Moore regarding the clearance processes they had to go through to get a same sex romance on the show, specifically following the negative fan reaction to TNG's "The Host". The full quote is "They questioned us closely about our intentions, and why we were doing it, and how it would work in the story, and how far we were going to go, they saw that we were sincere, that it was a good story, that we could say something with the show, that it was what Star Trek stood for and that it was actually something to be proud of. They went for it." So as you can see, it is mostly a long run on sentence. But possibly we could extend the quote to be add that Moore also said that the storyline was "something to be proud of" as well. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• A general thing, but it would be best to archive all online references where possible.

• I've archived the two that were missing. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 13's url needs updating.

• I just double checked and it is linking to the right spot - the url for the clipping shouldn't link directly to the newspaper page itself, as if the indexing system is changed then it'll become a dead url. Whereas by linking to the clipping page (containing the link to the page) it'll be safer in the long term. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 6 has a "subscription required" message attached to it. Can this be resolved?

• I just checked at the Washington Post website to see if there was a direct link that could be used instead, but there isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably have a second look through once these issues have been addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Second Pass

• The entire "alien kiss" paragraph switches from "LGBT" to using the term "queer". Is there a special reason for this outside the one quote featuring the word?
• "In using the scene in isolation, alien kisses, Bruce argues, "strips away..." - The phrasing seems a little awkward here. Maybe rephrase as "In using the scene in isolation, Bruce argues that alien kisses "strips away..."

That's all I saw this time around. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period. Having achieved GA status last August, further improvements have been made since, and I believe this article meets the FA criteria. This article has previously gone through FAC twice; unfortunately both nominations received minimal attention, and Ian Rose has waived the two-week waiting period for another nomination. Third time's the charm? DAP388 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from jfhutson

I thought this was pretty good television, despite the fact that I usually find McConaughey pretty annoying. Let's take a look at the article.

• "The season's themes are masculinity and religion." I doubt this can be stated so unequivocally.
• "with painstaking care" doesn't seem like an appropriate use of quotation. Unclear attribution.
• "list of the "Ten of the Best"" too many definite articles.
• "The season incorporates gospel and blues songs, which were selected by Pizzolatto and T Bone Burnett; the pair opposed the use of Cajun music and swamp blues for the season's musical score because "it's already been done so much"." I could be wrong, but this semicolon usage sounds weird to me. Why not a period? Another unclear quote attribution.
• "Masculinity is an established trope" I think you're using "trope" as a synonym for "theme", which it is not. Look at how the Southern Spaces article uses the word.
• There are lots of unattributed quotes in the Themes and influenced section. See Wikipedia:Quotations#General guidelines to see what I'm talking about. If you're using quotes because you think these are non-neutral opinion, tell me whose opinion. If you're stating facts, summarize where possible and eliminate the quotes.
• The article focuses on pop culture sources (with one exception), which is probably fine for most shows, but I see at least four papers here that look like they deal with this show in depth. Have you looked at them to see what they might add?
• There was a plagiarism scandal related to this show covered in reliable sources. I'm not saying you need to talk about it much because it looks bogus, but you could work in into the part about Ligotti.

--JFH (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Baron Munchausen

Nominator(s): Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Behold the Baron! The brainchild of an 18th-century con artist who fled his country with a price on his head, the unbelievable Baron Munchausen flourished as an international pop-culture hero from the 1780s onward … much to the frustration of the real-life nobleman who inspired the character in the first place. This article is a GA and has been peer-reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive introduction to the Baron available anywhere, but I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Happy to take a look through. I actually looked at this article the other day for "research" purposes after coming across Nietzsche's mention of him and wondering what was going on.

• You say that "Most ensuing English-language editions, including even the major editions produced by Thomas Seccombe in 1895 and F. J. Harvey Darton in 1930, reproduce one of the rewritten Kearsley versions rather than Raspe's original text." and then immediately say "Raspe's English version of the Munchausen stories became the core text for almost all later versions, not only in England but also in Continental Europe." I'm struggling with this.
  • Yes, that is a bit weird. I've removed that confusingly worded second sentence.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "an original German sequel was published in 1789" Title and translated title?
  • Fixed. This info was in the collapsible table of translations and sequels.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "which circulated widely soon after the book was published" Which? The original German translation?
  • Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm all for tying the various Wikimedia wikis together, but is a link to the German Wiktionary really all that? How about knocking together an entry for the English Wiktionary and linking to that instead?
  • Now that you mention it, a link to anything seems like overkill here, since the word is clearly defined in the paragraph. I've unlinked it.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• What's an "academician"?
  • Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "a film version was made in 1980" The version you're linking to is apparently 1979? The same film is mentioned further down, again with the 1980 claim.
  • The cited source claims the film is from 1980. IMDb says 1979, but that info is of dubious reliability. So to be on the safe side, I'm siding with the source.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "was the second most popular series on the air" In the US, I assume? I must confess that the article occasionally seems to have a slight US-centric tone.
  • Good point! Please point out any other American-centric wordings so I can fix them.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "as a modern-day descendant of the Baron" Hardly- "modern-day" to those 75 years ago, I'm guessing!
  • Fixed. Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I'll be "back for more" in the coming days. I've made a few copyedits. I want to pre-emptively defend my redlinks; per WP:REDLINK (and see also my Signpost piece on the subject) redlinks are not something to be scared of; while I see the value of interwiki links, they are of minimal interest to the large number of readers who are unable to read German/French/Russian/Italian/etc. We can have both a redlink and an interwiki link if we make use of the template I've added. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Josh, good to see you at FAC, I've been a fan of your work for a long time. To start off, I've reverted your addition of a link to de.wp in running text when we had a perfectly good page here (on the 2012 film) ... I can't think of a single case where putting such a link in the text itself has been okay at FAC, but maybe others know more than I do about that, since I don't focus on link issues. I also reverted your addition of the {{ill}} template, based on the discussion we already had about this at PR, I'll reproduce it here: - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"His cousin, Gerlach Adolph von Münchhausen": The {{ill}} template is fine while an article is being developed, but it's not fine at WP:FAC (and I would argue, not at PR or GAN either), because non-Wikipedians are unlikely to know what "(de)" means, and even if they know, it won't help them unless they read German. It would be better to write a stub on en.wp and link to that; the stub can then link to de.wp.

@Dank: Thanks so much! I'll polish up the article.

One question: can you give me a source for your assertion that the {{ill}} template is "not fine at WP:FAC"? I can't find anything in the MOS to discourage it, and indeed H:ILL seems to encourage it.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I remember seeing it rejected once, and rarely brought up in the first place, but that's not much of a source. It doesn't seem like a hard call to me, for two reasons: 1. The purpose and effect of the template is a big "under construction" sign, in the hope that someone will notice that there's work that needs to be done here, and get to it. FAC is for articles where the work that obviously needs to be done already has been done. 2. I don't always keep up with new trends so I could be wrong, but it looks like a honking big Humpty-Dumptyism to me. Do you know of any professionally copyedited print text that uses "(de)" to mean "better information can be found for the thing immediately preceding, if you follow this note or reference, in German"? If not, then let's have a look at where it's used on the web, and see if the tone is suitably encyclopedic. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove the template from the page. Thanks again!--Lemuellio (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• End of quoted text. I'll stop there for now, I just wanted to jump on this to see if we can get everyone on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry- it did occur to me that the interwiki template might cause a bit of controversy. I don't like the idea of interwiki links dropped into the text in the place of links to enwp (red or blue), but I know that some people are frustrated at the thought that we redlink when there are perfectly good articles on other language Wikipedias. The template offers a degree of compromise between the two, but I agree that it's not ideal for many of the same reasons you're concerned about it. That said, you are wrong that we have a perfectly good article on the 2012 film, unless I misunderstand the claim- there's an article on dewp, but not here on enwp. If we have to make a choice between an interwiki link (useless to most readers, who cannot read all of these languages) and a redlink (actively encouraged by our guidelines) then it's an easy choice- we should be redlinking, or, if we're really opposed to redlinks (an attitude contrary to our guidelines!), creating stubs. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought I remembered an article on the film, must have been hallucinating. I think the bottom line is: at FAC, we can and regularly do ask people to create stubs, for all kinds of reasons, this is just one more reason. It's not a problem for me if the stubs link prominently to de.wp. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  For now, I have replaced them with simple redlinks; I of course have no objection to people creating stubs, and hope that someone (at some point) will! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

• In the second paragraph of the section Baron Munchausen#Historical figure is the following sentence:

• However, Münchhausen was considered an honest man, rather than a liar.

I recommend reversing the order of the parts of this sentence:

• However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man.

Putting "rather than being considered a liar" first creates a link to the previous sentence, and putting "was seen as an honest man" second creates a link to the next sentence. If you feel that the phrase is too long, then it could be shortened to:

• However, rather than a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. (or)

• However, instead of a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. Corinne (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I like your first suggestion. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment By trying to be "about [both] the literary character and his historical namesake", this article becomes confusing. It's as if the Jerry Seinfeld (character) article had all the Jerry Seinfeld stuff as well. As I see it this article is basically the character article; but unlike in the Seinfeld case the real person's article doesn't need to exist as he isn't notable.

You should therefore treat this article as a straightforward fictional biography, with the real guy's info there only to provide background to the character. In effect though, none of the content will drastically change, just remove the WP:MOSBIO elements: the real guy's infobox, the bolding of his name in the lead, and his birth/death dates (move them to Historical figure). And start the article with "Baron Munchausen is a fictional German nobleman in literature and film, created by the writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1785". That'll make it crystal clear what this is article is about.—indopug (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I, too, am sympathetic to this approach, and was thinking about it as I read through the article. On the other hand, I suspect that the real-world Munchausen is notable. Perhaps the shift in focus suggested by Indopug along with the creation of a short article (there's easily enough here for a good start class, and that'd give you somewhere to put the infobox/categories, which don't really belong here) would be the best way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the namesake is notable by WP standards; since inspiring the fictional character is the reason he's remembered and written about, he strikes me as a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E. On the other hand, that's exactly what makes this article's focus a bit tricky to pin down: in order to explain the fictional character sufficiently, the historical storyteller has to be given good coverage as well. The fiction/reality overlap seems unavoidable. As one of the writers quoted in the article says, "These two barons are the same and they are not the same…"

I'd be glad to hear others' opinions on how to handle this. If removing the second infobox and unbolding Hieronymus's name will make this article less confusing, I'm happy to oblige.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost all barons are "notable by WP standrds", certainly this one. But I think the existing approach is correct, though a little clarification at the start of lead would help. I too was briefly unsure of the subject here, but it did not last long. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose, for the purposes of this review, that we needn't decide whether the real-world baron is notable. That said, a slight shift in focus to make sure that we're clear that this is an article about the character (so, debold the real name in the lead, remove the infobox but keep the image, remove the categories added for the person) is likely appropriate either way. If someone chooses to create an article on the baron, it can be linked as appropriate (or taken to AfD if we/someone is of the view that he is not notable, though I remain fairly sure that he is). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and shift the focus, and see what happens. Thanks.--Lemuellio (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement; I am leaning towards supporting, and will take another look through in the coming days. (Shout at me if I haven't said anything in a week...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaning support. I think the article is very good, but there may be elements I have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Dore-munchausen-illustration.jpg: source link is dead, and should use original rather than upload date
  • Thank you for this image review! I've done my best to remove the problem on the Commons page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Rudolf_Erich_Raspe.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:G_a_buerger_sw.jpeg, File:Gottfried_Franz_-_Munchhausen_Underwater.jpg
  • Same as above.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Stamps_of_Germany_(BRD)_1970,_MiNr_623.jpg is tagged as being non-free
  • Thank you for catching this. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Muenchhausen-1lats.jpg: the given tag states that Latvian coins no longer circulating by 2004 are PD, but this coin is dated 2005
  • According to the tag: "Per 2004 amendments of Latvian copyright law … reproductions are allowed … [if] criteria for reproduction set by issuing national bank or country are met. … [T]he criteria limit reproduction of coins as actual objects (i.e. tokens, medals etc.), which could be mistaken for genuine coins, but have no requirements for images that are flat (i.e. drawings, paintings, photographs, etc)." So, unless I'm misreading the tag, it would appear that any photograph of any Latvian coin is free for use as long the photograph itself is freely licensed.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:BaronM.jpg: freedom of panorama in Russia does not extend to sculpture, so we need a licensing tag for the statue itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The sculpture is by Andrey Orlov (b. 1961) and was unveiled in 2004, so it most likely cannot be used here. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Never do an FAC too close to Christmmas though! Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• "However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man." What does the "however" relate to? The preceding sentence does not seem to indicate anyone considered him a liar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning "However" is to clarify that despite the unusual nature of Münchhausen's performances (he told long outlandish stories about things he claimed happened to himself, and told them as casually as if they had really happened and were not at all astonishing), his contemporaries were able to recognize that what he was doing was storytelling rather than lying.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think "rather" would be enough to make that point (seems a bit like a pleonasm now), but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• There seems to be a bit of a potentially confusing issue, in that the original German books use the exact same name for the fictional character as the real person, while only the English translations use a slightly different name. I've listed some resulting issues below.
  • On the contrary, "Munchausen" is the original name of the fictional character (see the Fictionalization section). It was only in translation into other languages, including German, that the spelling shifted to "Münchhausen" to match the real-life man's name.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue was that the German version is identical to that of the real life person, unlike the English version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Raspe, probably for fear of a libel suit from the real-life Baron von Münchhausen" But was the real person actually a Baron? It seems "Baron" is considered a type of "Freiherr" in Germany, according to the German Wikipedia. Yet it seems the real life person was never referred to specifically as a Baron there? If "Baron" simply substituted "Freiherr" in English translations, this should probably be stated somewhere, and the real life person should perhaps not be referred to as one.
  • The German WP says that the honorific "Baron" can be applied to a Freiherr (bisweilen mit der Höflichkeitsformel „Baron“ angesprochen). So, to the best of my knowledge, the real-life person can accurately be called "Baron von Münchhausen". Raspe, at the very least, seems to have considered "Freiherr" and "Baron" equivalent.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Is "von" used in the name of the fictional character as well? If only in translations, this could be noted, as the lack of umlaut is noted too.
  • I've never seen the "von" used in versions of the English original; only in German translations.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps the full name (or the words "real life") should be added to the caption of the image that shows the real life person ("Münchhausen circa 1740 as a Cuirassier in Riga, by G. Bruckner"), to differentiate the two.
  • Fixed. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Could dates be mentioned in relation to the various reviews under "Critical and popular reception"? Now it is unclear whether commentary is contemporary or from much later.
  • I'm not sure how necessary that is, since the commentators are all wikilinked and so their time periods can be easily checked. (There's a year given for the one unlinked exception, Sarah Tindal Kareem.) I can definitely add a few words to clarify that the review in The English Review is contemporary, though.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure what others think about this, but I think it would be helpful to add date after the name of the artists in the captions of the illustrations.
  • I'm not sure either, but I'd be happy to do so if there's a consensus in that direction. So I'd value a second/third/fourth opinion on this.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Pearl's popularity gradually declined between 1933 and 1937, though he staged several comebacks before ending his last radio series in 1951.[9]" I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the subject of the article?
  • It seems like a good way of establishing how long the Baron-as-radio-phenomenon lasted, so I would recommend keeping it in.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but as is, the reader wouldn't know that the two issues (Baron's/Pearl's popularity) are connected, since you don't mention whether Pearl used the Baron as a character until the end. If he didn't, there isn't much relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since a lot of text is devoted to von Münchhausen's telling his stories, an image like this[42] that is used on the German Wikipedia might be fitting to illustrate that.
  • For a while, that very image was indeed used to illustrate this article. However, it's unclear when exactly that image was made—and, therefore, whether or not it's fallen into public domain—so it was eventually removed.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, since the artist died in 1934 (more than 70 years ago), and the images were published before then, those images are definitely in the public domain. Where was this concern raised? FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The character is loosely based on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen" Perhaps bold this name in the intro, as it is also a subject of the article?
  • For a long time, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen was in bold on this page; then, during this FAC discussion, there was some conversation about whether or not the real-life man really counted as a subject of the article, and eventually the name was unbolded. I could go either way on it; please don't be afraid to reopen the conversation above. And thank you for all your comments!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the real life person doesn't have an article, and has a substantial amount of text devoted to him here, I'd say he's a subject, but well, I guess it's a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree - me, I'd re-bold. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Westminster Assembly

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a committee of theologians called by the Long Parliament to reform the Church of England during the Civil War. The Westminster Assembly created documents which are part of the constitution of virtually every Presbyterian church in the world. Tim riley recently promoted the article to GA. JFH (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments The start: "The Westminster Assembly of Divines was a council of theologians (or "divines") and members of the English Parliament appointed to restructure the Church of England beginning in 1643. It was formed during the lead up to the First English Civil War by the Long Parliament." is rather misleading, as the committee did not actually sit until the war was well under way, and would not have sat at all without the war.
• The legacy section seems rather short, and does not make clear the legal position in England of those continuing to uphold the WA positions after the Restoration.
• Should not the quite long Westminster Confession of Faith get a "see also" link, as well as the standards?
• The article hardly mentions the virulent anti-Catholicism which is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the assembly and its product.

Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod, for your helpful comments. I think I've addressed them all. The issue of anti-Catholicism was a bit difficult, as I didn't find a lot written on the anti-Catholic attitudes of the Assembly itself (though I agree it was very anti-Catholic). I did manage to add a bit on Puritans anti-Catholicism to the background section and a paragraph on the Assembly's theological opponents (Catholics and radicals) to the theology section. --JFH (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – One feels shy about commenting after real experts like Johnbod, but I found the text well sourced and constructed when I reviewed it at GA and have no hesitation in supporting its promotion to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I am particularly impressed that after yet another reading for this review I have no idea where the nominator's sympathy lies in this protracted punch-up. A fine example of impartiality. Tim riley talk 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Too kind, Tim, but really, I'm well out of my area here! Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• "several others of the Assembly documents" Several other documents, or several other confessions? Seems it must be the former, but wording unclear. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The divines were even more strongly opposed to Catholicism than to William Laud and his followers. They associated both with Arminianism and persecution." Here "both" == Catholicism and William Laud, or Arminianism and persecution? Different meaning. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Lingzhi, I think I've cleared this up. --JFH (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The House of Commons approved both catechisms, but the Lords only approved the Shorter Catechism" Out of curiosity, is it worth noting either of two things: first, why they didn't approve the Larger, and second, whether this rejection had any real later impact? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My source doesn't comment either way, so I'm not sure what to do. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've cut this out as unnecessary detail. It matters very little that Parliament approved of the catechisms at all.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• "conceded to the Scots on prudential grounds" as in "prudent" or "advisory; superintending or executive"? Please use somewhat more high-frequency vocabulary, whenever such options are available... And is this a direct quote? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I might remove this whole episode per your comments regarding too much detail.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• "but Parliament may have nominated them to lend greater legitimacy to the Assembly and not have expected them to attend" Why not? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarified.--JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I really think the count of divines should be mentioned prominently in the lede. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done.--JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The Assembly's documents became influential worldwide through missionary expansion" This happened during the 17th century? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Some; New England is mentioned earlier in the paragraph. I suppose that's an immigration rather than missionary effort so I edited the sentence. But most missionary activity is going to be later. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• * Neither this article nor the one on the Root and Branch petition seems to spell out clearly what were the "perceived abuses by bishops". This is a critical oversight, IMHO, although I'm not sure which article should detail this info. perhaps this one can at least add 7 or 8 words to list the main one or two...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I decided this was not a great description of the petition anyway. The abuses would have been the aforementioned changes in worship practices and silencing of Puritans. Calling these abuses is probably not neutral. I did try to make it clear early on that Puritans opposed episcopacy because of its relationship to Catholicism. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: After reading and rereading, my biggest nagging concern about this article is that seems to have a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem. As just one example, the article closes by calling the Assembly's Confession "by far the most influential doctrinal symbol in American Protestant history", but never says why or how. The focus of the article seems too firmly set on details and not nearly enough on big picture issues that an outsider, who has no familiarity with anything Presbyterian or Episcopalian or anything even vaguely similar, needs shoved up to the lede and spelled out in flashing letters. Why should anyone care about this Assembly? How is its impact still felt today? Why is it important? It almost seems as though it was written by people so deeply imbued in those realities that the biggest facts are unconsciously assumed to be understood. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I have to agree. Some of it is probably from trying too hard to be neutral and just get the facts out. But of course the article needs to answer the questions you pose and doesn't need to get into minutiae. I'm going to have to think about how to fix it. --JFH (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded the Aftermath, now Legacy, section to better explain the Assembly's lasting importance. I've incorporated this into the lead and moved it toward the top of the lead. I've trimmed some detail, especially dates which are not particularly important. --JFH (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Nicaea_icon.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Done.--JFH (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Oceanides

Nominator(s): Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about The Oceanides, written by the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius in 1914; indeed, it stands as his second to last tone poem and is widely considered to be one of his most underappreciated (and underplayed) masterpieces. If you have never heard it, do yourself a favor and give it a listen: the wave-crash climax near the end of the piece is perhaps the most epic and onomatopoetic 'water music' ever written, serving as a worthy comparison to Debussy's ubiquitous La Mer. While I did not create the original article, I am the editor responsible for having dramatically expanded the content and for having brought it up to GA status (with the tireless effort and sage council of Ipigott, Gerda Arendt, and Tim riley providing essential wind in my sails). I want to be clear that The Oceanides was not only my first GAN, but also marks my first FAC. In addition, I see it as but one part, however important, of a larger project of mine: bringing as many of the Sibelius tone poem stub pages as possible to GA or FA status. I have also tackled or begun to tackle The Wood Nymph, User:Sgvrfjs/Ensaga, and User:Sgvrfjs/Pohjolasdaughter. I really look forward to the editing community's comments and questions! Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

Thanks for giving the piece a read through, Lingzhi. I am presently out of town but rest assured that I will soon be able to attend to the issues you have raised. Just did not want you to think you were posting in a vacuum. Thanks again! Sgvrfjs (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hepokoski and Dahlström. Harv error: link from #CITEREFHepokoski_and_Dahlstr.C3.B6m doesn't point to any citation. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

PENDING Thanks for pointing this mistake out. I have added the source for Hepokoski and Dahlström; however, I am having some trouble with the edit. The reference still, upon being clicked, does not jump to the Hepokoski and Dahlström source. And, additionally, the Grove Music Online is a service for which one has to pay to access; the access URL I have is through my university, Vanderbilt. But clearly, this won't work for readers. What is the Wikipedia solution for this issue? Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

For the linking issue, see Template:Sfn#Citation_has_multiple_authors_and_no_date. On the URL, the problem is that you are sending the reader through the Vanderbilt proxy - to fix this, removed ".proxy.vanderbilt.edu" and it should work. Personally I would suggest taking out the question mark and everything that follows as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

DONE Thanks for the assist on this; everything seems to work well know. The reference in the footnote now links appropriately to the source. I did, however, have to switch to using harvid rather than the sfn I have used throughout the article. Is this inconsistency a problem? Sgvrfjs (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, but switching the reference from {{cite web}} to {{citation}} is - cite web will work so long as you include |ref=harv. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is the term "convergent evolution" explicitly used in Hurwitz 2007? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

PENDING Convergent evolution is my term, but one which clearly captures the meaning of Hurwitz's view. Initially, I had block-quoted the entirety of this interesting (and important) Hurwitz passage, but during the GAN review, Tim riley (talk · contribs) suggested that I cut down the number of instances of block quote. Thus, when reworking the Hurwitz quote into an adequate paraphrase, I settled on condensing his wording with the term convergent evolution, which is shorted but retains his meaning. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a formal term in academic literature, using it unattributed kinda smacks of WP:OR, at least in my book. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE I see your point and agree. I reworked the sentences on Hurwitz to eliminate the term convergent evolution. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Aallottaret ("It must be so".), this instance is awkward. It almost appears as though Aallottaret should be translated as "It must be so." The punctuation is awkward as well. Please make it clear that "It must be so" was Sibelius's opinion on a related question. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE Agreed; deleted "It must be so", which in retrospect seems like an unnecessary quotation that contains little additional information. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• A small point, "(movement No. 1 lost)" in the lede is the only mention of having lost it before this fact is taken as given in the Bard section. readers may have forgotten that brief mention by this point in the text, so I would suggest a slight rewording of the Bard section to begin the sentence by restating that the movement was lost... and while I'm here, how do we know one movement was lost, and if we do know one was lost, how do we know it came first? I need to reread I suppose. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE I have added a brief recapitulation of the point to begin this section. I should add, however, that the subsection 'Initial and intermediate versions' does contain the sentence, "Today, three versions of the work survive. Initially in 1913, Sibelius conceived of the commission as a three movement suite for orchestra in E-flat major, of which only No. 2 (Tempo moderato) and No. 3 (Allegro) are extant", so there is already a mention for readers about this point post-lede. That said, I agree with you that by the time the reader gets to the subsection on relation to The Bard, they may be liable to need a refresher. Hope this fix works. As for how we know only one movement was lost and that the lost movement preceded the Tempo moderato and the Allegro, I believe the answer is this: the pages of the manuscript are numbered, and the numbering of the Tempo moderato begins on 27, or something like that. Thus, the first 26 numbered pages are missing; thus the assumption is that the first movement was 25 pages (not counting 1 page for the title page), which is about the length of the original copy of The Bard. Likely, 25 pages is too few too encompass more than one movement. This is the best answer I can provide, and to my knowledge the numerous sources I have read do not really detail the point beyond this. Barnett is that author who deals with the original suite most extensively. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Why is critic Cecil Gray, writing in 1931, "modern day", while Wilhelm Peterson-Berger (1923) is not? Where do we draw the line on "modern day"? Is it post-WWII, or is there some qualitative distinction that can be drawn between the two groups? If not, then it's possible that the easiest solution would be just to delete the (potentially unnecessary) term "modern day"... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE I moved Gray up to be with the older commentary, such as that by Peterson-Berger and others, and edited the descriptive phrase 'modern day commentators' to be 'more recent commentators'. The reason I see these two groups as distinct is because the latter group would have had knowledge of the reception of The Oceanides by the former group. But, you are right that Gray is best considered part of the earlier group. Hope this edit addresses your concerns. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I'm not too keen on the internal link "translated to English" in the very first sentence of the lede. It seems to me to have a subtle aroma of WP:EASTEREGG, but perhaps I'm being too picky. I would suggest simply deleting the link rather than rewording, but others' opinions may differ. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE Agreed; I deleted the piped link you mentioned above, as well as the one about the Jäger Movement, which likely followed the same logic. I did, however, keep the piped link on 'extant' that page jumps to the subsection on 'Relation to The Bard'. Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• "His response was to isolate", but "isolate" is a transitive verb. If you stick in "himself" as the object, the sentence does begin to show early signs of awkwardness. Dozens of ways to fix, but must be done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE I understand your point and am fine with the solution you found. I would just like to add that, originally, this passage read: "His response was to self-isolate." However, it was suggested during the GAN review that this should be truncated to just "isolate". Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• "consists of two subjects Sibelius gradually develops in three informal stages: first, a placid ocean; second, a gathering storm; and third, a thunderous wave-crash climax" This passage is apt to be confusing, because apparently "subjects" has some sort of formal definition (A and B, lively and majestic), but an uninitiated reader would almost certainly look within surrounding lede text and conclude that the two subjects are... wind and water or water and storm or similar. I suggest mentioning A/B lively/majestic... And is there an article on tone poem subjects we can wikilink? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

PENDING Hmmm...I see your point, but don't necessarily know what the fix is. I think mentioning A and B in the lede is not really that informative. As for whether we have an source we can link to to discuss the meaning of 'subject' in tone poems, I am at a loss. I think on this point, I might defer for the time being and wait for comments from other editors. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• "arguably the work's most stunning section " according to Barnett, on cited page? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE Deleted; I cannot find where I read this, but it does not appear to be Barnett. Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• "magnificent yet subtle" paraphrase or direct quote? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

PENDING Paraphrase; the exact quote from Rickards is, "The Oceanides is an extraordinary score, the subtlest, most magnificent evocation of the sea ever penned … The Oceanides, for all that it reflects the variability in mood of the sea, is music suffused by light". (Rickards, p. 118). Sgvrfjs (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Hey. I was just curious if you had any other thoughts on this 'pending' issue. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The bit about the national anthem and "Finland thanks you" is fluff, but it serves as an aesthetic pad after the extended direct quote.. but then, looking at the sources, they are three in a row from Stoeckel 1971. Are we in danger of close paraphrase here? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE My solution is to footnote Sibelius' reaction to the orchestra's playing of the anthem, while retaining in the main body the content that explains the pieces (including the anthem) that joined The Oceanides on the June 4 program. As such, the aesthetic pad is shortened, but maintained; hopefully, the fluff is gone. If this edit was unnecessary in your mind, please feel free to revert it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm currently struggling with a temptation to Oppose. I'm still reading from whatever sources I can find. I see many bits of relevant vocabulary on the page, but am not sure at all that it presents an accurate description. Suggest requesting expert input... know anyone? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Lingzhi, for the update. Would you mind telling me which words in particular (e.g., "subjects") you find worrisome? Sgvrfjs (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I don't have my thoughts in order, and unfortunately will soon hit a very busy period in my life. But I can throw out a few impressions (pun intended):

• First, I think the fact that this work is "strikingly different" from his other works (see "Gray, who calls the" in article's text) is more important than how often it was reworked, and thus belongs in the lede, whereas the number of revisions may or may not.
• Second, an explanation of this difference is in order.. perhaps along the line of bits of this quote from Inventing Finnish Music by Kimmo Korhonen "The Fourth Symphony (1911) is an extreme example of Classical simplification. Its severity and tonal ambivalence link it to Expressionism. Around this time, Sibelius wrote other introvert works, and it was not until the tone poem Aallottaret (The Oceanides, 1914) that he made a departure towards a brighter Impressionist tone." essentially I'm wondering if this is the only piece in his oeuvre that has been discussed as Impressionistic, and if so, what term (if any... perhaps Expressionism? Tim Page seems to suggest that Sibelius generally defies classification but occasionally leans to Romanticism; if he defies classification, then the whole "If this is the only Impressionist thing then what is everything else" line of inquiry hits a problem...) more nearly characterizes his other work. IN SHORT: Where does Oceanides stand in comparison to his other works (if definable), and where does Sibelius stand in relation to other composers (if definable). Note that some critics call Sibelius a "nationalist-romantic", but others say that label is true insofar as it goes but is a major underestimation of his work.... if that helps. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Third, in my mind at least there seems to be overlap between the "reception" and "analysis" sections. Admittedly that may be unavoidable, but I think that we should at least consider whether some bits should be moved. (I won't cause a fuss if you say "no, they can't", but I hope you will think about it.)
• Fourth, what is this discussion of Sibelius as progressive, what does it mean.... and why do I see mentions of it in discussions of Oceanides etc.; is it something characteristic of Sibelius, or was Oceanides notably more or notably less progressive than his other works, or... what? I have no understanding of music, but I'm sure these things can be considered... Perhaps more points later, but as I mentioned, I am hitting my busy season... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Lingzhi, for your attention to detail. I am going to try to take each of these points individually:

1. Definition of a "subject": I am not formally educated in music and music theory, and so, I am clearly not the most qualified person to answer this question. When faced with a question over a definition in music, I often turn to one or two books I have on my shelf: The New Everyman Dictionary of Music by Eric Blom (revised edition, 1988) and The Harvard Dictionary of Music by Don Michael Randel (4th edition, 2003). According to these resources, the definition of subject is as follows: per Everyman, "A theme used as a principal feature in a composition, esp. in a Fugue, where it is brought in a number of times, voice by voice, or in a Rondo, where it is a recurrent main theme returning after a series of episodes. In sonata form 1st and 2nd subjects are the main structural features, but there they are thematic groups more often than single themes"; and, per Harvard, "A melody or melodic fragment on which a composition or a major portion of one is based. The term, which has been used since the 16h century, implies that the material in question is developed or treated in some special way. It is not used principally with respect to the fugue and other imitative forms such as the ricercar and with respect to sonata form (where it may be synonymous with theme)". In my mind, when I use the word subject in my writing, I have theme in mind (per Everyman: a musical idea, generally melodic, sufficiently striking to be memorable and capable of being developed or varied in the course of a comp. A theme is generally complete in itself, whereas a motive is a figure which contributes something to a larger conception; but a precise distinction between the two is impossible"; and, per Harvard: "A musical idea, usually a melody, that forms the basis or starting point for a composition or a major section of one. Although the terms theme and subject are sometimes used interchangeably, as in the context of sonata form, theme often (though only since the 19th century) implies something slightly longer and more self-contained that subject".). So, with these four definitions from two respected sources in mind, here's where I think I stand: 1) the search for a clean distinction between various musical terms (e.g., subject, theme, motive, etc.) is particularly fraught, and indeed, common usage appears to have, more or less, eroded the distinctiveness between these terms that may have existed at an earlier time; 2) notice that Hurwitz sees The Oceanides as "sonata form without development" and Layton sees it as "something of a free rondo"; as the above definitions indicate, the use of subject is applicable here (or, at a minimum, not out of the ordinary), because the A and B subjects/themes do recure, are developed, and do form the basis (in terms of structure) of the composition in question; 3) the dean of Sibelius biographers, Erik Tawaststjerna (as translated by Layton), uses the term subjects and theme interchangeably in his writing.
2. Overlap between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS: I can see your point; after all, the very people quoted in the Analysis section are individuals who reviewed the work upon its various performances. What I have attempted to do here and in other pieces I have written or am writing about the tone poems, is to make the Reception section focus solely upon the positive/negative evaluation of the compositions (e.g., so-and-so didn't like it, whereas so-and-so thought it was sublime!), while the Analysis section seeks to hone in on one or more (in this case, two) substantive discussions about the piece. I, personally, like this distinction/division, because it allows the reader to focus on different aspects of the all-encompassing "discussion" in smaller, bit-size pieces. I also think it works better conceptually. Perhaps this explanation is not convincing, and I will think a bit more about a different combined section route, but I am glad to hear that you won't oppose the candidacy on these grounds! :)

• My section is getting long, isn't it? I apologize; you see, I am learning as I go. I want to repeat my muted wish that we could get someone with formal musical training in here to comment, BUT having said that, I feel a great deal of hope that my additions to the lede will accurately (that is the key concern, of course) resolve my earlier uneasiness about three points all in one blow: theme, subject, and what art school this piece should be considered within (if any). It also ameliorates the lack of discussion of the piece's relationship to Impressionism, which topic has its own section in body text and therefore is usually worthy of mention in the lede. I also appreciate your explanation of the difference between RECEPTION and ANALYSIS. I will continue to consider all these things, but I am feeling better about my earlier concerns on many fronts... I'm hoping this leaves only the issue of whether or not we need to discuss whether Oceanides is or isn't "progressive". Perhaps that topic is inside baseball; I dunno. I will consider Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Am prepared to drop the issue of whether or not the piece is "progressive". This may be a topic for the Jean Sibelius page (I suspect it is), or maybe be entirely inside baseball and not grist for discussion in an encyclopedia. Either way, I'm dropping it for this article. I have stricken through relevant comments above. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Also have requested a source check, as for example, what makes [Kalafut WP:RS. (I think that one can be safely deleted anyhow; it's backup)... I suppose I should get over my allergy to doing such checks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria

Image review

PENDING Thank you for your help, Nikkimaria. As I noted before, this is my first FAC and I'm not exactly sure what it is I am supposed to do with respect to the images. Should they just be deleted because they were flagged? Or is there some sleuthing expected of me? Thanks! Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of these will be fairly easy to fix, some will take a bit more sleuthing. If you are able to resolve an issue, do; if not, ask; if no one can, then the affected image should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• File:Jean_Sibelius,_1913.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • The author of File:Jean_Sibelius,_1913.jpg is given in the image description page. fi:Daniel Nyblin shows his date of death as 19 July 1923. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• File:Horatio_William_Parker_1916.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • The Library of Congress source notes that this photograph was published on 7 February 1916; this image already seems to contain this information, as well as the date of death of the photographer, 1942. I cannot find where the photo was published. Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • LoC's description isn't quite that specific - it says "created/published" 1916, and for our purposes the two are very different things. That's why I asked - if it was published then it's fine, if it was created but not published then, it may or may not be depending on when and where it was published. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_Sunset_at_Sea_-_Thomas_Moran_-_overall.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Aallottaret_Gallen_1909.jpeg, File:Stenhammar,_Vilhelm_i_VJ_5_1916.jpg, File:Sir_Edward_John_Poynter_—_Cave_of_the_Storm_Nymphs.jpg, File:Debussy_-_La_Mer_-_The_great_wave_of_Kanaga_from_Hokusai.jpg, File:Sibelius_à_Ainola_1907.gif
  • How do I go about finding these? Thanks. Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Take a look at the list here and see which, if any, fit. If the image was published or publicly displayed before 1923, one of the first two will work.
      • So, take File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_Sunset_at_Sea_-_Thomas_Moran_-_overall.jpg, for example. It was painted prior to 1923 (in 1906), but according to the link to the Brooklyn Museum, it appears this current scan of the painting is from 2006. But the Brooklyn Museum also says that the work is in the public domain because it was "created" by the United States of a United States national prior to 1923. So does it get the PD tag? I guess I am just wondering which date is the right one to compare against: 1906 or 2006. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Creating a copy of a 2D work, for example by scanning it, does not create a new copyright on the work. For the purposes of paintings, we take the date of their first public display (eg. in a museum) as the "publication" date. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• File:CarlEllenStoeckel_NCMFYale.jpg: how do we know this is a government work? Same with File:Shed1906exterior_NCMFYale.jpg, File:Shed1906interior_NCMFYale.jpg
  • When I uploaded these three images, I did so only after receiving permission to use them by the Yale University School of Music Norfolk Festival administrator, from whom I have an email as proof. She told me that as far as she knows, they are in the public domain and they treat them as such. The only thing she requested from Wikipedia was proper attribution as courtesy of the Norfolk... That said, I'm not sure why files say they are government works? Perhaps this happened because I or the people helping me made an error. As noted before, images are not my speciality. Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the email: "The Norfolk Chamber Music Festival is very happy to give you permission to use the images you list below. To the best of the our knowledge the images are in the public domain, and we would like to be credited as the holders institution. Thank you for adding "courtesy of the the Norfolk Chamber Music Festival, Yale School of Music". Good luck with the Article. If possible, when it is completed we would be very interested in a copy for our music library. Kindest regards, Deanne Chin Associate Manager Norfolk Chamber Music Festival - Yale School of Music." Sgvrfjs (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Both of these are currently tagged with PD-USGov - you'll want to replace that with a tag explaining why the images are in the public domain, if it isn't because they're government works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• File:Robert_Kajanus_(14854805748).jpg needs a copyright tag - the Flickr tag is non-specific and indicates a licensing inconsistency
• File:Claude_Debussy_ca_1908,_foto_av_Félix_Nadar.jpg is tagged as lacking source details. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments by Tim riley

Leaning to support – 3,500 words are are lot for a piece lasting 10 minutes, but there's no padding, no excessive detail here, though it might be worth hiving off the discography to its own article. A little fine-tuning is needed.

COMMENT I am well-aware of the padding concerns, and have fought to footnote all that I think is fluff but relevant (per your GAN review suggestions and using your reference style for Ravel). I should add, though, that there is perhaps one final bit in the main body that could be footnoted (or deleted), and that is Kajanus' speech on Sibelius' 50th b-day. Not exactly relevant to The Oceanides, even if it is beautiful; perhaps something better placed in the Jean Sibelius main page? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE the Kajanus quote was excised from the article. Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• A decision needs to be made and followed about whether to use English or American style for possessives ending in "s". At present we have both Sibelius's and Sibelius'.

PENDING Agreed; I have decided in all of the Sibelius articles I write to use the American Sibelius' rather than the English Sibelius's. I find 25 Sibelius possessives in the article, of which 24 are Sibelius' and 1 is Sibelius's; the latter, however, appears in a direct quote of Layton: "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of Sibelius's work is manifest only at a superficial level". Please kindly advise me: should I edit the Layton quote to read "Its growth from the opening bars onward is profoundly organic", Layton writes. "And its apparent independence from the rest of [Sibelius'] work is manifest only at a superficial level". Or merely leave it as is? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The Manual of Style gives you licence to leave as punctuated in the original or to standardise on the punctuation as used elsewhere in the article. On reflection I'd be inclined to leave Layton's quote intact, but it's up to you. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE Okay; I'll keep Layton as it. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is customary, as well as civil, to give people their titles, and you should afford Boult, Beecham, Gibson, both Davises and Elder theirs – and no lazy "Sir Thomas Beechams", please: it's worth doing the job properly as "Sir Thomas Beecham", etc. Rattle should probably not be given a title here, as he was not knighted at the time of the recording and its first release.

PENDING Agreed, and sorry to inadvertently deny the English their honors. :) I have fixed the Adrian Boult reference in text, but am struggling to figure out how to add 'Sir' to the names you described in the discography table without messing up the sortname function Gerda did for me. {sortname| Sir Adrian|Boult} would seem to work, but I don't know if this is a fix or work-around befitting a FAC! In fact, when I did it, it broke the links for Gibson and A. Davis. Thoughts? Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I'm not clever with tables, and I take the liberty of asking @SchroCat:, who is a wizz, for a steer on this. Tim riley talk 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

PENDING Okay, thanks; I'll message him. Sgvrfjs (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and remember to pop round shortly, but if I forget, could you remind me? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

DONE thanks to, @SchroCat:, for your help! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• We are inconsistent about whether to use words or symbols for flats.

DONE Agreed; edited to make everything the symbols. Sgvrfjs (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing very earth-shaking there, and I look forward to supporting. Not directly relevant to this review, but if one types "Oceanides" in the search box one ends up here. Well worth adding a hatnote there or otherwise disambiguating. Tim riley talk 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

DONE thanks to, @Lingzhi:, for taking care of this! Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – a fine page, and I look forward to further additions to the series Sgvrfjs has in mind. It would, nonetheless, be no bad thing if future articles were a touch more concise than this one. Tim riley talk 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tim, for your support and I am pleased to hear that your are a believer in the larger 'project' I have planned. As for the concerns you have over length, I concede that I am an editor who aims for writing a comprehensive article, and this goal does mean that the pieces are somewhat long-ish; I simply do not want to leave out details or pieces of the historical record that are important or noteworthy and in the analysis sections, I aim to let each side of the various 'debates' have their say. I do, however, work hard on the ledes because I recognize that not everyone wants to read all the detail of the main body and thus, the former's concision is an advantage. One final point: I see The Oceanides as a middle-of-the-pack tone poem in terms of anticipated article length; others, like En saga, Tapiola, Finlandia, and Lemminkaäinen would be longer; some, like Pohjola's Daughter and Luonnotar would be the same length; and, finally, most others would be much shorter, such as The Bard, The Dryad, Spring Song, The Wood Nymph, Nightride and Sunrise, and Pan and Echo. These lengths in my mind are a function of 1) historical significance/importance; 2) how much has been written by others (commentators, critics, academics); and 3) the story they have to tell (in terms of a laborious composition process, an important program, etc.). I have already written The Wood Nymph, which is shorter, and am at work with En saga, which is longer. I should add that I am starting a process, but probably will never complete the whole 13 tone poems. I see myself doing 4 of 5 (The Wood Nymph, The Oceanides, En saga, Pohjola's Daughter, and Lemminkäinen) in detail and then moving on! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda

I am sorry to not have time yet for in-depth looks, but have a few comments already.

• Image placement: try to have people look "into" the article, for example Stenhammar, looking right, should be right, Debussy should be left.

DONE for Stenhammar, but there seems to be no good way to get Debussy to look into the article because of the blockquote from Gray. The Debussy image being placed on the left would disrupt the aesthetic of the indention pattern necessary for blockquotes relative to paragraphs. Maybe I can find a different Debussy image? Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Image captions: make the connection to context, explaining why the image is there.
• Avoid pushing a header to the right by a left image, as the Moran sunset.

DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Consider to separate books, journals, online in the refs.

DONE Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank, for your support, as well as for having taken a look at the prose. The majority of your edits I support, but since your disclaimer gives me a little wiggle-room, I made two important changes: 1) I returned the original apostrophes around 'placid ocean', 'gathering storm', etc. because these are my paraphrases of Grimely's rather verbose explanations. Thus, in my mind, the quotation marks may not be appropriate, because it then makes it appear as though I/we are directly quoting the author; and, 2) I returned the words "Sibelius too" to the sentence that describes the second 1915 Sweden concert arrangements falling through, because the edit you made left it unclear as to who (Sibelius or Stenhammar) was the guilty party. Other than that, looks good. Thanks for your attention to detail! Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to take WT:MOS#double vs. single quotes into account, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Short version: MOS doesn't like the single quotes, and MOS compliance is part of the burden of FAC. If you'd rather not have double quotes because you're concerned that readers won't understand that the material isn't quoted, then find a way to rewrite it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

DONE I eliminated the single quotes, but opted not to rewrite, since the phrases I used already are a paraphrase or rewrite of the Grimley original. The document should be single quotes free now! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hex Enduction Hour

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark E Smith's finest moment and maybe one of the most enduring and influential early 1980s Post-Punk albums. Smith has always been instantly quotable and an engaging, acerbic subject. Note he tends to swear in that Manchester way, if I ever get hauled to arbcom for this. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Media review - I would argue for a more extensive FUR for each of the audio excerpts, indicating why these particular clips are needed for reader understanding. Also, the current FUR for File:Hex_Enduction_Hour_by_THE_FALL.jpg is incorrect - it's File:Hex_Enduction_Hour.jpg that's used in the infobox. Why are both needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, removed the promo artwork and one of the clips...working on FU for the remaining two. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Support I have only a few issues. Interesting choice of subject by the way.

"Vocalist and Fall leader" maybe "frontman" for leader?

• "touring rock groups" maybe "bands" for "groups"?
• "laval-walled" lava-walled?
• "who apparently often posed him loaded questions" I would drop the apparently and just say who is saying this.
• "He later said that what was going through his mind with Rough Trade was "Fuck off", while Kamera's attitude was "Yeah! Get on with it" This is saying, as I read it, that Smith's attitude was "Fuck off". Given that the second part is about what Kamera's attitude, I'd expect the first part to be about Rough Trade's.
• "memorably claimed" says who?
• "The track has been compared to dub "if it had been invented in a drizzly motorway ..." I'm not sure I understand what is being said here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

All done, except the last, which is a reference to Northern bleakness ie the surreal while also kitchen sink. It seems clear to me, but obviously need to figure this one out. Anyway, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Great record, and nice to see the mighty Fall getting some Wiki attention at long last. A couple of things jump out at me:

• The album is referred to simply as Hex in the lead, whereas the full title is used in the body of the article. Should this be consistent throughout, since it's not a particularly long title anyway?
• In the final sentence of the 'Re-issues' section, the title is formatted as "Hex Enduction Hour" - I think this should be Hex Enduction Hour, per this guideline.

Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 08:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A couple more from me:

• In the 'Background' section, Rough Trade should be linked, and possibly briefly described
• The same section talks about the "post Iceland recordings", but this is the first time that Iceland has been mentioned in the body of the article (it's mentioned in the lead and the next section) — sparklism ^hey! 20:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sparklism, now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I still think the "post Iceland recordings" part isn't quite right - it appears before the mention of the band recording in Iceland. — sparklism ^hey! 08:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment A few general observations:

1. I usually despise too-formal prose on Wikipedia, but here the opposite is the case, thanks to too many quotes. 'Background' especially gives off a huge punk oral-history vibe.
2. None of the influences in the lead—VU, Can, Beefheart—are mentioned again or expanded upon in the article; how did they influence Smith etc.
3. I don't see the point of the Album heading—articles on books wouldn't have a Book section. The old way was fine.
4. The audio clips need captions, describing the music and vocal style etc.
5. Aren't there any 1982 reviews of Hex? If not, it'd be great if you could source a biographer saying "the press ignored it" or band members' perceptions of how it was received. Also you should mention that what you're quoting are only retrospective reviews.
6. Reissues seems sparsely unreferenced?—indopug (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks for comments, working through Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Indopug, I think I have addressed all concerns, except for either naming or alluding to 1982 reviews. Working and will ping. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the history of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe. After a thorough copyedit and two peer reviews, I hope it may be promoted. Thank you for your reviews and comments in advance. Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Solid prose. Detailed and comprehensive as far as I can tell (though I'm by no means an expert on Hungarian history). I've tweaked a few lines of prose, but otherwise I feel it meets the criteria. 23 editor (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your edits, and also for your support. Borsoka (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all maps
• File:Ladislaus_(left)_Cuman_(right).jpg: the uploader does not hold the copyright here - this is a reproduction of a 2D work, no new copyright is generated
• File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Peresvet-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce-raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ships were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. It just passed a MilHist A-class review which included an image review. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support. Very nice effort. The usual quibbles:

Design

• "gainfully employed" mildly dislike using "employed" in this context for non-people. Maybe "gainfully occupied" or just "busy"?

• Shorter is usually better.

• "To reduce biofouling, the hulls of the first two ships were sheathed with wood and copper, but this was eliminated in Pobeda to reduce weight. They had a partial double bottom and the hull was divided by 10 watertight transverse bulkheads" grammatically, "they" refers to "the hulls", ditto "their" in the following sentence. Suggest changing "They" to "the vessels".
• "Their crew" maybe "Each crew".

Protection

• 6 inches is never converted to Metric.

• See the 2nd para of the design section.

History

• "Peresvet, however, was scuttled in shallow water on that same day." I'm not seeing the however. Both ships went to the bottom. There's not much contrast there, especially since per your excellent Peresvet article, there is uncertainty as to the reason for the scuttling.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think that you may be overthinking things as the Peresvet article makes it clear that she was not sunk by Japanese shells and I carried that over into this article. Look over them both again and see if this is still a problem and we can discuss it further if necessary.

Support. What you say is satisfactory. Sorry to be slow in getting back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review All sources appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following exceptions:

• McLaughlin 2008. Should not the word "and" between the ship names be italicized? (if you agree, you might want to change it in the other articles in which it is used)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not assure that I understand your comment. The entire article title is enclosed in quotation marks via the cite journal template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is since ship names are normally italicized, you recognize this in this italicized book title by not italicizing them. However, the word "and" that lies between the two ship names should be italicized as it is just a part of the book title and not part of a ship name.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• The Naval Annual should be italicized
  • Good catch.
• File:Peresvet1901.jpg: when and where was this first published? Same with File:Suou1908Yokosuka.jpg
  • The former was discussed in the image review for Peresvet. I've fixed the license of the latter one as it was mostly likely taken by a sailor during the visit of the Great White Fleet to Japan in 1908.
• File:Oslybya23.jpg: when and where was this first published, and under which provision do we assert it is PD in Russia?
• File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when and where was this first published, and what steps have been taken to ensure that a) it is a EU work, and b) the author was never credited?
  • Both of the Oslyabya pics were discussed in the Oslyaba image review.
• File:Peresviet_Port_Arthur_LOC_3f06353u.jpg: why the Japan tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Good catch, I think I've gotten a bit too used to automatically assigning a Japanese tag for ships that served in the IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Might be worthwhile to mention that Japan and Russia were allies in World War I in the lead - readers might be confused why former enemies were trading ships. I might say something like this: "Peresvet was sold back to the Russians during World War I, as the two countries were by now allies, and sank after hitting German mines in the Mediterranean in early 1917. Pobeda, renamed Suwo, instead remained in Japanese service and participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in late 1914."
• You might unpack the Russian decision to focus on a guerre de course strategy with Britain - I think readers might ask why after reading that line.
• There's a link for mild steel that might be useful - on a related note, is the chrome-nickel steel used on Pobeda Krupp armor? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. I've done the first one already, but the other two are going to take some time to source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe not as much as I thought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, but I guess I wasn't clear enough on the chrome nickel steel - that's in the line talking about the deck armor. I'd assume it's Krupp armor, since there wasn't a competing alloy that I'm aware of, but the average reader won't know that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not Krupp armor, just a tougher alloy than mild steel, better suited to deflect glancing hits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

William Etty

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

William Etty is something of a case study in changing fashions. A wildly wide-ranging and exceptionally gifted artist, he was once considered England's answer to Rubens and Titian, and the man who unified the diverging artistic traditions of English, Italian, French and Netherlandish art after generations of separate development owing to the French revolutionary wars. Unfortunately, he had the bad luck to die just before the great upheavals in European art and culture, and is nowadays remembered (somewhat unfairly) only as the man who brought pornography into the mainstream. His life is an interesting mix of contradictions—a poor northern boy who became an inveterate reactionary, a Francophile who hated France and the French, a devoutly religious man who made his living painting (in John Constable's words) "revel routs of satyrs and lady bums", a proud Yorkshireman who spent his entire adult life in London. This is a long article (although not unduly long—it wouldn't even make the top 150 in terms of size), but I don't think it's appropriate in this case to split it as the change in his style over time is an important part of the story.

Before any MOS purist complains, the placement of Andromeda looking out of the page is intentional; in art if she's not centred she's almost always depicted at the edge of the frame looking outwards. Likewise, I feel Holman Hunt's picture of Etty sketching works better with Etty looking out of the page, whatever MOS says to the contrary. ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support with brief comments
  • There are several formatting details that are not as I would wish, and occasionally text was sandwiched between images and margins (aggravated no doubt by my use of zoom to make the text larger & spare my poor eyes). However, I will let others hash out all these formatting questions. I have only one question: why was Etty voted in as an RA in Feb but was not fully a member until Dec? [And speaking of Feb/Dec, it would make both me and MOS happy if you would put &nbps; between numerals and months such as 16 August or whatever]. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The RA's admissions system followed (and still does follow) the masterpiece system inherited from the mediaeval trade guilds. Election gives one the right to create a diploma work, and only once that diploma work is judged up to scratch (and gifted to the institution to which one's applying) does one actually get the title. Thus, Etty was elected in February 1828, but it's only when Sleeping Nymphs and Satyrs was completed, donated to the RA collection and deemed of decent quality that he actually got the certificate.
    • Regarding formatting, pretty much anything with left-aligned images is going to get a sandwiching problem at some screen widths and resolutions as things stand; as long as formatting doesn't disrupt the flow at typical sizes (between a smartphone and about 1400px width), and doesn't actually make the text unreadable at higher widths, I don't consider it an issue, although others may want to wade in. At some point in the future, the WMF are introducing a maximum text width with further screen width whitespaced (view BBC News in a wide window for an idea of how it will look), which should make the issue moot. I'm loath to remove images if at all possible; although this looks a little cluttered with images, they're carefully chosen to illustrate his changing style and the key points of his career, and there aren't any obvious ones to remove. ‑ Iridescent 10:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Something about the masterpiece system could profitably be inserted into a well-cited footnote, it seems to me. Otherwise, my work is done here. ;-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
        • How's that, which expands on the existing footnote to (hopefully) make it clearer what the purpose of a diploma work is? ‑ Iridescent 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's good. Thank you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• A huge undertaking taken on with skill and taste; have now read most of it, with little inclination or need to ce. My impression is: Wow. Support. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comments
• I bridled somewhat to see Reynolds' portrait of the Prince in Wales looking unusually puddingy used as a representative example of his work (even though I wrote parts of WWW's bio). Almost anything else would be better.
  • Per the talkpage, I used that because I think Reynolds's painting of WWW ties in nicely with Etty's later work for the Williams-Wynns. I've no strong attachment to it if you want to substitute in something else. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think the association of "the Torso of Michelangelo" with the Belvedere Torso is strong enough to link it in the text. I assumed it was that before reading the note, as M's near-obsession with it was well-known. But whatever.
  • It's likely the "Torso of Michelangelo" was the Belvedere Torso, but there's enough doubt that I'm reluctant to state it as fact. Farr explicitly says that while the BT is the most likely candidate, there's also a possibility it referred to the River God model, or even to a partial cast of David. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• A Sketch from One of Gray's Odes (Youth on the Prow) - work in a link to the poet in the note? (ok, linked later)
• "the private Titians of that nobleman" - you might link to those that have articles in a note. Diana and Callisto and Diana and Actaeon etc.
  • In this context the actual works are less important than the fact they were seen as vaguely smutty, as the quote is clearly an insinuation that neither Etty's work nor Titian's was fit for public display. This is so footnote-heavy already, I'm reluctant to add more. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• "a passage from Homer's Odyssey in which sailors resist the irresistible song of the Sirens" - not exactly!
  • A near enough approximation, surely? Anyone who wants the full story can click through to the articles on either the book or the painting. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• "were thought by the English a uniquely Netherlandish form" - seems rather strong, whatever the source says; there must have been plenty of French and even Italian examples in English collections by then. "Mainly" for sure.
  • I agree; George Lance was already producing and exhibiting them in England, albeit with little impact. Changed to "primarily Netherlandish". Etty was the first major English artist until Sickert to treat still life as a significant genre in its own right, rather than a painting exercise. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• hmm "public display in the cellars of the National Gallery" - "basement galleries", perhaps? In my book cellars have bare walls of brick or stone.
  • "Cellars" is what the NG themselves called the makeshift room under the staircase where the Vernon Collection was housed prior to 1850 (or The National Cellar-ius to Punch). Feel free to change to "basement" if you think it reads better. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ten or more years ago the Royal Academy had a (free) display of some 20-30+ of its Etty drawings and studies for several months. Might be worth mentioning.
  • I've found it impossible to find any sourcing, although I agree if it can be found it would probably be worth mentioning. The main narrative of that section - that the Tate exhibition in 2001 rescued Etty from being a curiosity confined to the Lady Lever/Anglesey Abbey bastions of kitsch in critics' minds, the publicity surrounding Sirens in 2010 prompted the press to start looking at him more closely, and the YAG retrospective rehabilited him back into respectability - is accurate, I think, but in an ideal world it would be nice to have more on where his works have been exhibited. (He was so prolific, and his works have historically been so cheap, that they tend to pop up in all kinds of unlikely collections.) ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Minor quibbles on a very fine piece. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support My points adequately dealt with. The corner-stone of a fine series of articles, FAs & not. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Juan (1985)

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a very unusual hurricane just over 30 years ago. It twisted and swirled around the Louisiana coast, causing widespread flooding at the end of a very bad hurricane year. To top it all off, the areas got affected only a month later by another hurricane. This is part of the ongoing focus to get 1985 Atlantic hurricane season to a featured topic. Hope you enjoy reading this article. I'll be happy to address any and all concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• “Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "nyt1028" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).”？--Jarodalien (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed, it was a minor typo. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support --12george1 (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)After reading through this article, I feel that it is great, but I have two issues. Otherwise, I will support.--12george1 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• There are some cities mentioned with their state, which is not followed by a comma. For example, "just west of Pensacola, Florida late on", "near Burrwood, Louisiana and accelerated", "from the Port Arthur, Texas area."

• Oops, I didn't realize that was a thing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• The url for Reference #7, which is titled " The Floods of November, 1985: Then and Now", redirects to the NWS at Blacksburg, Virginia.

• Had some trouble with it, but I fixed it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• The 1985 AHS FT slowly marches forward...
• The "Notes" section is a little weak for my tastes. Currency can be defined once on the first usage, and it's a little weird to define "tropical wave" in-article when that term is linked to a fairly well-developed article. There's lots of other meteo jargon that seems content with a wikilink.
• , causing widespread flooding for several days. - Does this mean it was actively causing places to flood for several days, or that the floodwaters lingered for several days?
• The energy from Juan helped spawn an occluded low in the Tennessee Valley, which produced additional rainfall throughout the region. - I'm not sure the provided source says Juan was related to the occluded low, only that the new low extended the flooding rains (same for the "Inland and Mid-Atlantic" section).
• Ref 8 doesn't seem to support all of the evacuation stats at the beginning of the "Preparations" section... but I could be missing something.
• and two beaches were closed in southern Texas - I think you should be a little more specific about the location, since (presumably) lots of beaches were closed to swimming.
• leaving debris and marsh behind when the storm passed - Not sure what "marsh" means in this context.
• The total storm cost in the state was estimated at about $776,000. - A little weird to be "estimated, about" and such a specific number...

Other than that, it looks pretty good. I've done some minor copyediting myself. Once the above points are addressed, I'll be happy to offer my support for the article based on prose, presentation, and comprehensiveness... though I'm no citation whiz, so somebody else might want to check the references for consistency, etc. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrestle Kingdom 9

Nominator(s): starship.paint ~ KO 07:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a 2015 Japanese professional wrestling show, the premier annual event of NJPW, and was praised by critics. Jointly worked on by Ribbon Salminen and myself, we've started, DYK-ed, GA-ed and peer reviewed this article. This is the second attempt at FAC - the previous one had relatively few comments.

To encourage activity, I'm willing to exchange reviews for anyone I haven't already given help to! starship.paint ~ KO 07:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wrestlinglover

Addressed

"Wrestle Kingdom 9 was a professional wrestling event produced by New Japan Pro Wrestling (NJPW) which took place on January 4, 2015, at the Tokyo Dome in Tokyo, Japan." - Remove the coma. Was the event only called Wrestle Kingdom 9, because I know previous events add extra to it? Was this not a pay per view as well? Might as well include that in this section. Might as well follow the format on some of the TNA articles I do. Put promotion after NJPW to inform a reader it is a promotion/company and not a large organization or governing body like NWA, etc. Done. However, per MOS:DATEFORMAT, the comma should be there. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I see, my issue isn't punctuation it is the stall. "took place on January 4, 2015.......at the Tokyo Dome" - Disrupts flow. Could just do "took place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015."--WillC 13:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC) "It was the 24th January 4 Dome Show. The event featured 10 professional wrestling matches, with an additional match on the pre-show." - Change to "It was the 24th January 4 Dome Show and first event on the 2015 NJPW event schedule. The event featured ten professional wrestling matches and one pre-show match, six of which were for championships." Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) "The event, attended by 36,000 fans, received positive reviews from critics." - Might as well include something regarding these critics. I've always disliked saying it received positive reviews from critics. It seems like a judgment call from the editor which I don't feel is very encyclopedia. Included. starship.paint ~ KO 09:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC) "of WWE's WrestleMania." - Change to "of WWE's WrestleMania pay-per-view event" since readers have no idea what that may exactly is. Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) "Wrestle Kingdom 9, promoted as the "largest wrestling show in the world outside of the United States", was the 24th January 4 Dome Show[3] (although some previous shows have had other names).[4]" - Move reference to end and remove the parenthesis. Change to "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was promoted as the "largest wrestling show in the world outside of the United States" and was the 24th January 4 Dome Show, although previous events were held under different titles/names (your choice)." Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Something I learned in a previous FAC, all dates should feature a specific code in them. I'm not sure why but some policy on the way the article is shown on devices and for special readers. The code is "& nbsp ;. See Bound for Glory IV on how it is used properly. Done. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC) "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014" - Sorry it seems like I'm hitting every single statement. I try to do indepth reviews to make the articles better. I know the issue of working on something so long and so much it gets old. Here I'm thinking the date and venue should be attached. Why? Because the lead mentions it and the previous link to the dome show is nice, but not enough. What I'm saying is readers might not really know what Dome means and if you have to state what the venue is might as well just say the date. Change to "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014 to take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015." Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) "GFW Presents New Japan Pro Wrestling's Wrestle Kingdom 9" - Not sure why this is italicized. It was a PPV not a TV show. I don't believe it should be. Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA)." → "the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) promotion." Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) "Chromecast, Xbox 360 or Xbox One (three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with the application)." → "Chromecast, Xbox 360 or Xbox One; three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with the application). Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Make the above sentence and the rest its own paragraph. Lead is so small for this type of article and event. According to WP:LEADLENGTH, anything above 15000 characters should have 2 or 3 paragraphs. This has 24204 characters. It leaves me unsatisfied to the overview.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Expand it a little please.--WillC 13:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Expanded, a little. It is 3 paragraphs now. starship.paint ~ KO 07:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Second paragraph needs some expansion still.--WillC 20:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Expanded again. starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Background
  • "Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling, which it approached about bringing the event to a new market." → "Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling promotion to bringing the event to a new market." - move ref to the end
    • This has not been addressed.--WillC 21:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
      • "That day NJPW announced a partnership with Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling promotion to bringing the event to a new market" doesn't sound right to me. Am I missing something here? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "the Wrestling Observer Newsletter" → "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter" - per WP:THE
    • ummm actually I'm disagree with this. As per f4wonline.com - their name doesn't include The. Compare [43] and [44]. starship.paint ~ KO 09:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:THE summarized basically says that anything that you would normally have to say The before should have it included in the title. We don't says wrestling observer newsletter, we say the wrestling observer newsletter. It is better for flow. Plus the is before it in the article which goes to show that WP:THE is suitable for this situation. While the official name may not be that way, it still connects to this issue at hand.--WillC 21:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I also disagree. Everything I'm reading on WP:THE to me says not to have it capitalized. This doesn't meet either of the conditions on the top of the page and in fact we have examples of "the" not being capitalized in front of "Wrestling Observer Newsletter" in running text (here, here and here). Also, it is not in the official name as Starship noted. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Similar examples would be the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Post. starship.paint ~ KO 02:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Storylines
  • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 featured professional wrestling matches including wrestlers from preexisting scripted feuds and other storylines. The wrestlers, playing faces (heroes) or heels (villains), followed a series of events culminating in a match (or match series)." → "Wrestle Kingdom 9 featured ten professional wrestling matches and one pre-show match that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds and storylines. Wrestlers portrayed heels (villains), faces (heroes), or less distinguishable characters in the scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "his" - possession of title again. Company owners, wrestlers don't. The days of wrestlers having to put down deposits on the belts are over.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "number-one" - Never really liked this hyphenated. Change sentence to "Okada became the number one contender to the title on August 10, 2014 by winning the G1 Climax."
    • Done. Left in the part about him becoming the number one contender specifically at Wrestle Kingdom 9. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hiroshi Tanahashi, who withdrew from the IWGP Heavyweight Championship picture after losing to Okada on October 14, 2013, re-entered the picture on September 21, 2014 by challenging A.J. Styles." - Very odd sentence here. At first I understood it and was about to ignore it but I had questions. If I have questions, I'm expecting other editors/readers to have questions. I say remove the whole information about him having left the picture. Unless you desire to explain the entire history there. That would include Okada defeating him for the title, then losing it to him, then defeating him for it, losing to Styles, then Tanahashi beating Styles. I'd change it to "Hiroshi Tanahashi and Okada have an extensive history of matches for the IWGP Heavyweight Championship. The path that led to this match started on September 21, 2014 when Tanahashi challenged the then IWGP Heavyweight Champion A.J. Styles to a title defense. Tanahashi defeated Styles on October 13 at the NJPW King of Pro-Wrestling event to become the IWGP Heavyweight Champion. As a result, this slated the Wrestle Kingdom 9 main event to be the seventh match between Okada and Tanahashi since February 2012 and their second January 4 Dome Show main event after Wrestle Kingdom 7 on January 4, 2013." This helps clear up the paragraph.
    • Done, any objections @Ribbon Salminen:? starship.paint ~ KO 07:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Nope. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Add NJPW before Power Struggle.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "performed a German suplex on him and challenged him" - Just say he attacked him. The move adds nothing to the statement. Not like he broke his arm or powerbombed him through a flaming table. It is a suplex. "assaulted Nakamura and challenged him for the title;"
    • done starship.paint ~ KO 09:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "A previous singles match between Nakamura and Ibushi during the 2013 G1 Climax was ranked the "Best Bout of the Year" by Tokyo Sports." - Why is this important? This is storylines. Better suited for the production section. Even then I'm unsure why quality is important unless it was part of the promotion. Taker/HBK had the quality as an important factor so quality is not unheard of, is this a cultural thing? I'm rusty on my puroresu. Also, is the IC belt not contested by all wrestlers cause I'm curious regarding the heavyweight sentence prior.
    • Changed the first part. Umm @Ribbon Salminen: do you know more about the heavyweight thingy? starship.paint ~ KO 07:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
      • The Intercontinental title is a heavyweight title, no junior heavyweights ever make challenges for it. Sombra was technically a junior heavyweight, but was also an international talent intended to put over the "intercontinental" aspect of the title. Here Tokyo Sports lists the Heavyweight, Tag Team, Intercontinental and NEVER titles as NJPW's four heavyweight titles. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Previous IWGP Heavyweight Champion A.J. Styles (of the Bullet Club group) and fellow top contender Tetsuya Naito were booked together at Wrestle Kingdom 9. During the 2014 G1 Climax (when Styles was IWGP heavyweight champion), Naito pinned him in a non-title tournament match but did not have a title shot before Styles lost to Tanahashi.[22] Since Styles did not receive a rematch with Tanahashi, it was theorized that the Wrestle Kingdom 9 winner would be the top contender." - Remove Bullet Club stuff, mention that in later paragraph. Remove Styles as champion note, change to "Naito pinned then IWGP Heavyweight Champion Styles" Theorized? Part of storyline or is this media based?
    • Theorized by the media, which is now mentioned. starship.paint ~ KO 09:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • " by defeating the Bullet Club's Anderson and Gallows (the champions) in a non-title match at NJPW's 42nd-anniversary event." → "by defeating the Bullet Club's IWGP Tag Team Champions Anderson and Gallows in a non-title match at NJPW's 42nd-anniversary event." - Add NJPW before Invasion Attack and Wrestle Kingdom 8.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "where Anderson and Gallows defended their title" → "where Anderson and Gallows retained the title" - Explain what the tag team league is also. If it is a tournament, place tournament after it. Simple fix.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Suzuki-gun stable" - jargon, change to group. Spell out KES.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Stable again in Bullet Club paragraph.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Mention Styles is a member in this paragraph. It covers the subject, best to have it here.
  • "during a Bullet Club post-match beatdown involving popular underdog Tomoaki Honma, NJPW veteran tag team Tencozy (Hiroyoshi Tenzan and Satoshi Kojima) stormed into the ring and drove the Bullet Club away." - Bordering on in universe. I'd change it to "during a Bullet Club post-match assault on Tomoaki Honma, NJPW veteran tag team Tencozy (Hiroyoshi Tenzan and Satoshi Kojima) stormed into the ring to the aid of Honma, driving the Bullet Club away."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bullet Club would be represented in the match by Bad Luck Fale, Yujiro Takahashi and Jeff Jarrett, making his NJPW ring debut." → "Bad Luck Fale, Yujiro Takahashi and Jeff Jarrett—making his NJPW ring debut—were scheduled to represent the Bullet Club at the event."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd drop the Junior Tag Title match from the storylines. It is rather pointless. Isn't alot of information.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Event
  • "The pre-show featured one match, the New Japan Rumble. Tiger Mask and Yuji Nagata began the match, with new wrestlers each minute." - List all participants in the first sentence. "The New Japan Rumble took place on the pre-show featuring...." "with new wrestlers entering each minute" Explain the rules of this match before you go in-depth on what is happening. Make the order more simple. This is an overview, not a play-by-play. I don't need to know Tonga entered 11th to eliminate someone. Makes me wonder when the others were and then it becomes a clusterfuck. Say Tonga got the first elimination and Kabuki got DQed.
  • "Yoshi-Hashi threw Tonga over the top rope to leave himself and Nagata in the match, won by Nagata with a bridging belly-to-back suplex at 26 minutes and 9 seconds" - Poorly structured resulting in poor flow. Change to "Yoshi-Hashi threw Tonga over the top rope to leave himself and Nagata in the match. Nagata won the match by slamming Hashi against the mat with bridging belly-to-back suplex and covering for the pinfall at 26 minutes and 9 seconds." - Let the reader know what is going on. It is a trait that comes with having to think of the article as a non-wrestling fan. We know what is going on. Someone who is reading this to learn has absolutely no idea what is happening. This was on the pre-show, so why is it included in the undercard section if it is not part of the event?
    • Created a pre-show section. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I cut some play-by-play and re-worded others. But a bridging suplex requires no cover >_> starship.paint ~ KO 03:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Undercard
  • I'll come back to this section. I want to cover the rest of the article. This seems like a bit of work for me to covering everything indepth.
• Main event matches
  • Same as above
• Reception
  • Something I had to learn the hardway. Get ready for people to ask "who" in regards to "reportedly." So here it is, who has reported these figures?
    • Cited. starship.paint ~ KO 07:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is the number of subscribers important to this event? 20,000 is nice but doesn't mean that many watched the show. That sentence is better for the Background section because it builds the streaming site.
    • Moved. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Just say four out of five stars.
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 07:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The Wrestling Observer Newsletter
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 07:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Guessing Meltzer did the review of the show. Note that Meltzer is stating this stuff.
    • The source cited no author. starship.paint ~ KO 07:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "wrestleview.com" → "WrestleView.com" - Normally I'd say this isn't important but since the review is of the Japanese stream it has some significance.
    • Capitalized the "W". The site doesn't capitalize the "v". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd question Pro Wrestling Dot Net being noted but Jason Powell writes for various sites and is becoming a name so I'm fine with it. Plus he is discussing Ross and Striker. Consider removing it though. I guess it is supposed to be a reliable source now but still that large of a name.
  • State that Paste is a magazine.
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 07:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "The event, ending with "a broken Kazuchika Okada shambling tearfully back towards the locker room ... made the moment feel real, confirming that Okada isn't just a great athlete but a better actor than most who step into the ring, and elevating the entire scripted, choreographed display into something beyond a sport"." → "Martin commented on the ending of the show, stating that a "broken Kazuchika Okada shambling tearfully back towards the locker room made the "moment feel real" which displayed that "Okada isn't just a great athlete but a better actor than most who step into the ring, and elevating the entire scripted, choreographed display into something beyond a sport."
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 08:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "In his review, Vaughn Johnson of philly.com wrote:" "In his review, Vaughn Johnson of the Philadelphia Media Network through philly.com wrote:"
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 08:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Periods go within quotation marks.
    • Done, where there were periods starship.paint ~ KO 08:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Aftermath
  • The Ross comments would be better in reception. He is discussing the quality of their performance.
  • Where did Styles pin Tanahashi at?
    • It's the "Raw after WrestleMania", a house show named "New Year Dash!!", but is that really important? Also, the current source calls it "New Year's Dash", so we would have to get another primary source to get the correct name. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Anymore about Okada? Three losses and that is it? He is champion now. Must be more.
    • Added. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • " (in which Ishii defeated Tomoaki Honma for the now-vacant title)." → ",in which Ishii defeated Tomoaki Honma for the now-vacant title."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 broke Yuji Nagata's streak of consecutive January 4 Dome Show main cards at 21." → "Wrestle Kingdom 9 broke Yuji Nagata's streak of consecutive January 4 Dome Show appearances at 21 by being featured on the pre-show instead of the main card."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Split this paragraph. It covers multiple subjects that shouldn't be connected. One for Nagata and one for the rest.
    • I disagree. The subjects are all interlinked. Nakamura's aftermath requires Nagata and Goto. Goto's aftermath requires Ibushi, who was Nakamura's original opponent anyway. starship.paint ~ KO 13:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the Japan Cup?
    • A tournament. Now mentioned. starship.paint ~ KO 13:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is Goto? There was no mention of him and then suddenly there he is. He lost the Cup and then suddenly gets a title shot. Explain how that came to be.
    • The ex-tag champion. He made it to the tournament finals, which is mentioned. starship.paint ~ KO 13:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Add NJPW prior to event names and event after event names. Lets the reader know they are events and not just shows.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • " its takeover of the promotion" - What is this the NWO?
    • Rewritten. starship.paint ~ KO 12:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is there a hyphen in tag team?
    • Removed. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Drop last paragraph. It is trivia information for the most part. Why is Koslov's next to last appearance important to this event? It is not. Them winning the titles has nothing to do with this event. Might as well say the weather was sunny the next day.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Results
  • "Singles match which could only end by knockout, submission or referee stoppage" - Use English coma. knockout, submission, or referee stoppage.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This table is fine. No redirects. Only issue is the match titles but that is editor preference. You know, I created the section for multiple man teamed matches. It did not exist and everyone was just linking to the article with no section to explain. I created it for the hell of it and now everyone links to it. I had no idea how much that would be used and now looking back on it, it is a very odd feeling.
  • What is with the random references in the New Japan rumble. They are just sitting there. Place them in the table.
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 12:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Are Tanaka and Komatsu notable? If they aren't anytime soon, no need for the links. Per WP:RED. Kabuki is a redirect.
    • They are automatically linked because of the sortnames function in the table. starship.paint ~ KO 12:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Make mdashes in the table: ;mdash
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 03:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Table is done well. Like its ability and function.
    • yay! starship.paint ~ KO 03:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• See also
  • Might as well include link to GFW and WrestleMania. GFW because connection. Mania because equivalent. Starrcade, Bound for Glory, and November to Remember are also options.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Add Japan portal.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• References
  • Move all mid-sentence references to the end of the sentence. It disrupts the flow of the article.
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Look fine. Accepting. May look into them more later.
• External links
  • Not connected to this article but just a request. Can someone update the template to include links to ALL Dome shows. Only 2 listed is very odd. Like the job was only half done.
  • Any other links like to site covering this specific event or in demand links? GFW website would be nice as well and anything they have.
  • Categories look fine.
  • Hidden categories look good too.
• Images
  • Poster's fair use is alright. Could be a bit better. I had an featured image editor look over a couple posters in the past. Gave me a really good image rationale for posters. I use it in all of my posters if it is for a GA or an FA. See File:Bound for Glory IV.jpg to use it.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt text in poster is wrong.
    • It was changed by a copy editor and according to this, it's fine. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt text for Jarrett is close but you don't have to go that indepth. Just say what you see. "Jarrett in a pink shirt standing outside of an event."
  • Not sure Jarrett is the best image for that section. You got an image of the event like the entrance ramp? How about the image of Ross and Striker being used here instead? Connects to the information.
    • Connected JJ to the information instead. starship.paint ~ KO 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Okada image is fine. Alt text could be shorted to just "Okada wearing a golden garland in wrestling gear standing in a wrestling ring."
    • Would blind people know what wrestling gear is? starship.paint ~ KO 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Drop the Honma image. Not needed and not enough room since it is conflicting with the sections. Doesn't provide a clear, cut, concise, and nice article. Formatting is important.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Redragon image is fine. Alt text will do. Captain could use some cutting. Just say they defended the title at the event. Put front and back in brackets instead [front] and [back].
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nakamura image is fine. Just say he defended the title at Wrestle Kingdom. Distinguishing which main event is pointless. Alt text could use some cutting on description of title and what he is wearing.
    • Cut the main-event. Don't see need to cut descriptions... starship.paint ~ KO 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Move the Ross/Striker image to Background. Caption being "Jim Ross (left) and Matt Striker (right) were chosen to commentate the event by Global Force Wrestling.
    • See above, kept JJ in the Background. starship.paint ~ KO 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Can either enlarge the Tanahasi image or replace it with File:Hiroshi tanahashi NJPW.JPG. Both work and both have benefits. One has a clear view of his face. Other involves the belt.
    • Enlarged. starship.paint ~ KO 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ibushi image is unneeded. Too many images hurt articles. Enlarge the bullet club picture. Alt is fine, the caption should be changed to them just winning titles at the next event.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I said I'd review this last time and never got to it. I plan to review it this time around. I'll complete this sometime during this next week. I'm in the middle of finals right now so time is constrained.--WillC 01:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! It can wait until after your finals, really. starship.paint ~ KO 11:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Alright, here is most of the review. I did not cover the event section. I will once this stuff is fixed. Now that I've covered almost everything I want to do a few disclaimers. When I review articles, I go in-depth. I look at every word, every sentence, every image, and some times the source code. The article isn't bad. It is very good. I'm just making sure it is as close to perfect as possible. It takes time and patience to do it. One reason I don't review as much anymore. Also, you reviewed Hard Justice (2008) for me not long ago. We had alot of back and forth on changing stuff there. I'm expecting the samething here. I want that. I feel reviewing should be a discussion, not a dictation. I did not review this differently than anything based on any disagreements on that article. I state this because I did not expect to find this many issues as I did and I don't want it to seem like I'm being a dick. I wish to help get these issues fixed. Once we cover everything I've listed, I'll cover the event. The main reason is because just skimming the event I'm going to have questions and I don't want to double what I already have.--WillC 13:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Wrestlinglover: - check the replies :) starship.paint ~ KO 04:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Checking--WillC 20:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Been busy, I'm getting to this.--WillC 00:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Killer Instinct Gold

Nominator(s): czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Writing 90s video game history comes with a special set of source issues: a world of consumer magazines too young and insufficiently nostalgic to warrant systematic online archiving, and too old to be around in any form on the Internet or in public libraries. This is my second 90s game article (first FA being Mischief Makers though Deathrow was not too far behind in years), and I can say that it's really rewarding to track down every extant, major source on such a topic. I think this article makes an easy FAC because of this element of completeness alongside easygoing and engaging prose, and I hope you'll think the same.

This is a fighting game from a prominent video game series. It is enough of a one-off to not have a WP article until we started the recent 31-article Rare Replay project, but conspicuous enough to let us make some instrumental statements about its era. The article went through peer review mid-year. I'll note one technical point: that the Reception section publications are sometimes referenced as metonyms (that the publication said something rather than an author at the publication), and I kept this because those publications did not list authors in those works and thus the reviews were speaking as the publication's voice. I don't think it should be an issue. Thanks for your time (but don't be a c-c-combo breaker), czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Techtri

Extended content

Under Lead: Players press buttons punch and kick their opponent in chains of successive hits - doesn't read right, something missing here. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) There's a minor inconsistency between the lead Killer Instinct Gold uses many of the characters, combos, and 3D, pre-rendered environments of the arcade version while in the Gameplay section The game uses all of the characters, combos, and environments available in the arcade Killer Instinct 2 - is it many or all? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Under Gameplay: I'd prefer to see the footnote "Not all characters from the original reprised their roles." separated from the references.Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) The gameplay section mentions it excludes some voiceovers from the arcade release. I noticed the IGN article [45] mentions that all the FMV sequences from the arcade release are omitted in Gold also, is this worth mentioning? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Under Development: during a time when British company was becoming a prominent second-party developer and ally for Nintendo. - I'd like to see this claim sourced. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Rare's Killer Instinct series served as Nintendo's brand of the popular Mortal Kombat. Needs rewording, I'm guessing we're trying to paraphrase "Killer Instinct was essentially Nintendo's version of Mortal Kombat", but using the word "brand" here isn't right. Also do we need to mention that MK was popular? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Its soundtrack was released on compact disc, which was rare for 90s video games. - Would it be better to use "1990s"? Also I think the source only refers to it being a rare thing for a UK/US game. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Under reception: But while GameSpot wrote that Gold was decent - "Decent" looks a little out of place when used here. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Under References: The "Game Informer" ref appeared to be a dead link for me. If that's not a temporary issue, deadurl needs to be set to yes to swap over to the archive link. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not too sure if the archive.org scans of the print sources should be linked to or not. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks, @Techtri! I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. My understanding is that the Internet Archive has unique permission to make specific, otherwise out-of-print, archival works available to the public, and I don't think it has been an issue before. czar 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Comment on sources: The sources which you cite are all wholly appropriate for an article of this sort, but I would like to make a quick comment about formatting. It seems that in many cases what you're citing first and foremost is the physical magazine, with the online source being a mere courtesy link (this is especially true, for example, in the case of the Archive.org links). As such, you should really be citing them as magazine articles with URLS, rather than as web sources. So, as a "for instance", your Scary Larry source could specify that this was volume 9 and issue 2 of GamePro, and then there would be no need for an accessdate (as the source would clearly be the magazine, and not the webpage). Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn, nice catch—fixed! Any more comments on the source review? czar 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some inconsistency when it comes to providing publishers for magazines/websites; I honestly wouldn't bother. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I added GamePro '​s publisher but what are the other inconsistencies? The other publications either had no publisher or gave their name to the parent company. I'd also be amenable to just scrapping the publisher field for all of the refs in this case, as they are almost all hyperlinked and it's doubtful that they'll be misconstrued. czar 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not worried about things being misconstrued, I'm worried about consistent/professional formatting. So, I know that Destructoid '​s publisher is Modern Method, but I don't know the New York Daily News '​s publisher; I know that Nintendo Life is from the Gamer Network, but I don't know where Next Generation comes from. And so forth. When I say "I wouldn't bother", I mean I wouldn't bother providing the publishers- I can't say I've ever seen publishers provided for magazines/newspapers/journals in more traditional academic sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, because the Daily News '​s publisher is the Daily News (same for the NYT, etc.) and the standard is to not repeat in those cases—hasn't been an issue in my previous FACs. But as I said, I too don't see the publishers adding more clarification than clutter here, so they're gone now. czar 14:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am happy that this is a very strong article- well-written, well-sourced and an appropriate, scholarly tone. I made some copyedits; please double-check them. I have two "big picture" comments.

• First, I know that you and I disagree about how to refer to our sources in the text; I aim for the citing of authors rather than the citing of publications. We can perhaps pin this on stylistic differences. However, I note that while you often approach this how I would (eg, "Doug Perry (IGN) found Gold '​s music to be crisper,[3] though he and Ed Lomas (CVG)") you sometimes refer only to publication, even though we have an author name (eg, with Allgame). It may be preferable to provide the author where you can.
• Second, are you completely opposed to a character list? I note that a lot of video game articles would have a story section, but such a thing would (I'm guessing?) be inappropriate here. (That said, there must be some thin premise that explains why all these people are fighting each other- something about "Ultratech"? Shouldn't this be in the article, even if only in passing?) However, given that this is something discussed at length by commentators on the game and surely part of any enduring appeal of the series, maybe a list of the 11 characters (name, very quick description, notes indicating whether they are a new arrival, hidden character or what-have-you) could be added to the end of the gameplay section? It could even be a collapsible list so that it's only looked at by those interested. On a related note, it seems that the main character list article doesn't even specify who is and isn't in Gold.

I am close to supporting, but I'd like to hear your response to these. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn, thanks! Since many of the reviews did not have a lead reviewer listed, I think it's safe to assume that reviews were definitely speaking on behalf of the publication staff as a whole. I'd go further to say that the magazine is a much more useful metonym for the individual reviewer, especially when we are not expanding on their individual preferences at length and just giving basic overviews of their thoughts (which are presented on behalf the publication). Anyway, I updated Allgame and a few other examples to associate with the author but let me know if I missed any. I checked the manual (which comes with the game) and its story section says nothing about an Ultratech plot, nor does it show up anywhere else. None of the reviews mentioned it either. The manual didn't include any background on the characters either (just lists of the move sets, no personal background). I'd say that since both the reviews and manual didn't find it important enough to explicate, that it shouldn't be important to us either. This said, I think it would be fine to show continuity of characters in the section/article dedicated to the series characters. But for the sake of the encyclopedia article on the game, I'd say that the fictional character detail falls on the far side of video game trivia. czar 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the fence here. I'm inclined to think that plot/character details are important, and that the article isn't complete without them. I'm going to mull this over a little and see what other reviewers think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Though, to reiterate, I do think it is a very strong article! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn, any last thoughts on this? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose my last thought is that I am very much not opposing. I am not of the view that this fails the FA criteria. However, I'm afraid I am not comfortable supporting at this time. I'm sorry to be such a pain, and I sincerely hope that this does not negatively affect the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

Alright, enough messing around, let's do this.

Lead

• Killer Instinct Gold uses all of the characters, combos, and 3D, pre-rendered environments of the arcade version, but adds a training mode, new camera views, and improved audiovisuals. Change "all of the characters" to "every character, combo, and 3D pre-rendered environment".
• Following the success of the 1995 Killer Instinct port for the Super Nintendo home console... Why not just say it's full name?

But that is its full name—and the other details are included to provide background for why there was a sequel in the first place czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reviewers preferred the Gold Nintendo 64 port to its arcade equivalent. I'd remove Gold, since it's more or less redundant.
• Critics recommended the game primarily for fans of the series and genre, but IGN reported that even fans were upset by changes in the combo system and the absence of several well liked characters. Why is IGN in italics? Also, link IGN, as most casual readers won't know who they are.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". In the article's context, IGN exclusively refers to an online publication that produces original/creative content (and in no capacity as a network/company) czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• The game uses all of the characters, combos, and environments available in the arcade Killer Instinct 2. Once again, change all to every, and reword as "every character, combo, and environment".
• There is also an additional hidden character. You should mention how to unlock this character, if one of the sources mentions it. While playing Rare Replay, I remember unlocking the extra character with a cheat code for an achievement.

None of the sources said anything more about it czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Development

• The Killer Instinct series began as an arcade game (1994) and became known as "Nintendo's version of Mortal Kombat" upon its release on the company's Super Nintendo (1995) and Game Boy (1995). Once again, why not just simply write out the full name for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System?
• The image states that the game was included as a launch title, but this is contradictory to what is stated in the third paragraph. If you meant to say it was originally meant to be included as a launch title, reword.

Reception

• This is the one section that's a real problem in my mind. The problem is that you jump all over the place. Like seriously all over the place. One minute, it mentions the music, then the framerate, then whether reviewers recommend the game, then a reader's poll, and finally a quiet European release, in just one paragraph. I honestly can't support this article until a little more order is brought to this section. Take for example The Last of Us (no particular reason for choosing this game, other than it was the first one to pop into my mind). That article's reception section gives individual aspects of the game their own section, as to what reviewers thought of it (plot paragraph, characters paragraph, gameplay paragraph, etc.) I can see the second paragraph of this article working, because talks soley about the sound and backdrops, but still, this section as a whole needs a good reworking.

I didn't think this was off, but I've tightened this based on your feedback. TheLast of Us comparison isn't apt—the game launched a thousand think pieces and reams of Reception on its constituent elements (on each, separately!) Game reviews from the 90s are shorter and less detailed (print mags), especially on games not considered masterpieces. The goal is to adequately summarize the reviews, and the reviews were generally thumbs up/down for sound/graphics/gameplay. Anyway, I think you'll like the cleanup. czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

• No problems here.

Like others have said, this is a VERY solid article, just need to cleanup the reception section to get my support. In regards to a plot and characters section, I think it would be quite pointless, since this game really doesn't have a plot other than "an evil guy is evil, and you need to fight him" or something like that (I never made it very far in this game to find out). Famous Hobo (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo, appreciate the review. I think you'll like the changes, but let me know what you think? czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh definitely, that reception section looks better. Sorry about the comment about the reviews, I don't deal with a lot of old games. Anyway, I'd still like to get a clarification on the N64 caption as to whether it was a launch title, or if it was pushed back, but other than that, you got yourself a Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks czar 22:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

Support. I stumbled here from my own FAC, thought I'd comment.

• " Characters including a gargoyle, a ninja, and a femme fatale fight in settings such as a jungle and a spaceship" - could use a comma or a dash after the "characters"
• "Rare was a prominent second-party developer for Nintendo" - specify when (the 1990s)
• "It received a wider release in May 1997." - maybe specify "worldwide" instead of "wider", for people who don't know that term.
• An announcer narrates major game moments with phrases like, "Awesome combo!" - this could be an odd comment, but are there any other phrases from the game that might be a bit more.... appropriate? Don't get me wrong, it's fine, but it doesn't have a ring of excitement, especially involving a major game moment. If you don't have sources to any other phrase, it's fine, it just struck me as somewhat odd for an article going for FAC.
• "There are ten characters in total: three new and seven returning from the previous title." - new from the arcade port? Or the original?
• "There is also an additional, hidden character." - no comma needed
• I feel like this sort of sentence is missing from the lead: The reception was mixed. I read half of the article before realizing not many people really liked the game (I especially liked the quote about its shelf life being weeks, not months). Given how negative and mixed some of the reviews were, I think adding that sentence would help set the tone earlier on.

All in all it's a really good article. My comments shouldn't be too hard to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink, thanks! I think I've addressed them all, if you'll take a look. Awesome combo was the best direct quote that I saw in the material—I don't think it's so bad an encouragement. Also no source summarized the reception as being mixed, so I thought it would be original research for me to conclude as such myself. Instead, I think I balanced what the reviewers did posit about the game. czar 07:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks, looks good for me to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco

• Lead strikes me as a bit long for the length of the article. I'd probably put less emphasis on the reviews

• I'd try and reduce the lead's discussion of reviews to two sentences.

Reduced (reluctantly) czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• the arcade version - Above you listed Killer Instinct 2 as a separate game, not a different version of the same game (which "version" implies).

• You say it's a game based on a game. This implies that there are two games being discussed. "Version", meanwhile, implies that there is one underlying game, with different iterations. They are subtly but fundamentally different. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It is both. It is both in the image of its model and its own entity. Fixed anyway czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• the series remained dormant through its 2002 acquisition by Microsoft - might be read as only KI having been acquired by Microsoft, when it was Rare which was acquired

• Again, this sentence as currently written implies that only the property was acquired by MS, rather than the company (viz. Bethesda's acquisition of Fallout, which did not include acquisition of Interplay). We should be unambiguous. "acquired by Microsoft through the purchase of Rare" or something more polished. Might work well as part of your discussion of the company in paragraph 2 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything other than that the series became Microsoft property, which is the only detail about the matter that I would consider important for the lede. The fate of Rare doesn't matter here for KIG at all, especially when I'm removing important parts from the lede for length issues anyway, no? czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do any of the previous reviewers have an opinion on this matter? Josh? Techtri? Hurricanehink? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Czar; the fate of Rare is of limited importance, and the current wording does not imply, as far as I can see, that it was only KI that was acquired. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Alright. I'll strike this one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• "combos" - why the quotes?
• computer-controlled or human opponent - Although I know what you mean, this could be misread as the opponent being human, rather than the opponent being controlled by a human player.
• the previous title - I don't think you've linked the original KI yet, outside of the lead. Might do it here.
• Agree with Josh: a plot section is sorely lacking.

• Page 7 of the manual, at the very least, says that it's some sort of tournament. Have you tried the game itself? That is an RS for WP:VG, albeit a primary one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought about this when I first wrote the article. (1) If the sources don't think that tournament plot is worth mentioning at all, I don't think it has sufficient weight to be rationalize its inclusion. (2) Plot in the instruction manual doesn't mean it's present in the game—in fact, many 80s/90s games included all kinds of backstory and plot completely peripheral to the final release. czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can't say that it is entirely peripheral. If we read the article on Scorpion, for example, we see that it mentions character developments which occurred outside of the games proper (even in the early 1990s). If we don't have much detail on the plot proper, however, there's nothing to do. Guess I will (reluctantly) accept the lack of plot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• games industry, game industry, or gaming industry? Don't think I've heard games industry before
• Reviewers highly praised the game's sound and environment backdrops, and noted that the character animations were not as sharp in comparison. - "And" suggests that both are parallel (i.e. positive); is this supposed to be contrasting them? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, thanks! What parts of the reviews would you recommend cutting from the lede? It's perhaps a sentence longer than I'd like but I consider everything there either highly cited or important for understanding the game and its context in a nutshell. I'm not sure where you read that KI2 was listed as a separate game? The "based on" section of the lede? I worked with that sentence for a while, but since sources were hesitant to call KIG a direct port, I prefer to say that it's "based on" KI2 and then later explain that it uses much of the same elements. After establishing that, it shouldn't be a stretch to refer to them as similar or different version of the same thing throughout the rest of the article, no? An alternative would be: "Killer Instinct Gold is the 1996 port of the arcade, fighting video game Killer Instinct 2." I thought it was sufficient to say the series was acquired—it shouldn't matter for KIG that Rare was acquired too. I used quotes as a term of art, to distinguish its usage (at least at first). Did you see my comments to Josh above about no source (not even the manual) mentioning a plot? Games/game/gaming industry are used interchangeably in sources (video game reliable sources custom Google search). I think I've fixed everything else, if you'll take a look. Really helpful—thanks! czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'll take a look. Appreciate your time, czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Alright, looks good now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain1999

Image review:

• File:Killer Instinct Gold cover art.jpg is the game's cover art, and has proper rationale.
• File:Killer Instinct Gold screenshot.jpg is a screenshot, with appropriate rationale and caption.
• File:N64-Console-Set.png is a free image, with an appropriate caption.

All images have proper rationales, and appropriate captions, so I can support on images.

For the sources, I looked at this version, and checked sources 1–12, 14–15, and 17–28. As much as I'd like to leave some comments for you to fix, I could honestly find nothing here. Every fact in the article is immediately followed by a source, all of which are reliable, and all referencing is consistent and appropriately archived. So, with that, I'm happy to support on sources. Incredible work, as always. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Next steps

@WP:FAC coordinators: Anything else needed here? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Last of Us

Nominator(s): – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
Rhain1999 (nominator), Jaguar, Famous Hobo, ProtoDrake
Comments/No vote yet
Indopug
Oppose
None

The Last of Us is a 2013 video game, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The game's four-year development was significantly documented, which led to a wide anticipation for its release. It became one of the most acclaimed video games, earning over 240 Game of the Year awards. It is highly regarded as one of the greatest video games of all time. I've been working on this article a lot over the past year or so, and I now feel satisfied that it is well-written, and sufficiently meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

Here's what I see

Lead

• The box art needs an alt text.
• Players control Joel, a man tasked with escorting the young Ellie... by saying "the young Ellie", your assuming readers already know who Ellie is. Introduce her as "a young girl named Ellie", the same way you introduced Joel.
• players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... Really nitpicking at this one, but when stealth is mentioned, its almost as if your saying stealth can be used as a physical weapon like guns. Maybe reword that? If you don't agree, that's fine, like I said, really nitpicky.
• Players can also upgrade weapons and items using items scavenged from the environment. items is used twice and almost back-to-back in the same sentence. Reword the sentence or replace one of the items with another word.

Gameplay

• Players traverse post-apocalyptic environments, moving through locations to advance through the game's story. I feel locations is a bit too general, since they go through buildings, houses, sewers, etc.
• Players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth, defending against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... If you changed it in the lead, change it here. If not, ignore this and move on.
• Players also control Ellie and Sarah throughout the game's winter segment and prologue, respectively. I know this having played the game, but from a casual reader's viewpoint, who's Sarah?
• In combat, players can use long-ranged weapons such as rifles, shotguns and bows, and short-barreled guns such as pistols and revolvers Link long-ranged weapons, and short barreled guns, though I couldn't find an article for short barreled guns, so link what you please there. I wouldn't recommend linking the actual guns though, as it could get pretty crowded with links.
• Physical abilities, such as the health bar and crafting speed Link health bar, since that's pretty much a gamer only term.
• Equipment such as health kits and Molotov cocktails can be found or crafted using collected items. Wouldn't this part go better with the crafting sentence? Besides, the previous sentence mentions how you can use health kits to heal, and then its explained how to make health kits, which seems weird.
• Players solve simple puzzles, by using floating pallets to move Ellie, who is unable to swim, across bodies of water, and using ladders or dumpsters to reach higher areas. This is a hard cut from periods with combat, and kind of caught me off guard. Try opening the sentence with "During these periods, players may have to solve simple puzzles..."
• Players' companions, such as Ellie or Tess... Once again, who's Tess?
• In every mode, players select a Faction—Hunters or Fireflies While I guess this is fine, since you introduce them as factions, you may want explain a bit more about each group, since they're both important to the singleplayer. Also, why are faction and hunters capitalized? Fireflies is fine since that's there name.

There's just some initial comments for now. Will take a full look later, but so far, very good job. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Famous Hobo! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns. However, I was confused as to what you mean by "Link long-ranged weapons", since I could find no article on the subject. In addition, the capitalisation of Hunters and Fireflies is also present in the source, which I followed. Let me know if I missed anything from above, and I look forward to seeing more comments. Thanks again! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's continue. Just as a side note, I'm doing this during classes, so my editing schedule is rather all over the place. My apologies for such disjointed comments.

Plot

• In 2013, an outbreak of a mutant Cordyceps fungus ravages the United States, transforming its human hosts into cannibalistic monsters. Cordyceps is already linked in the lead and gameplay, so unlink it here. Also, in the lead and gameplay, you call the enemies zombie-like, but in this section you call them cannibalistic monsters. Pick one and stick with it.
• Link Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City the first time each are mentioned, since you linked Austin and Wyoming. Also, any particular reason you mention the state Austin is located in, and not Pittsburgh or Salt Lake?
• Ellie expresses her survivor guilt and asks Joel to swear that his story is true; he does. I'm a little uneasy about saying Ellie has survivor guilt. It's implied at the end by her facial expression, but it's never explicitly stated, which might border on original research. If Ellie does state this, that's fine, but if not, you may want to reword this sentence.

Development

• This is presented in a scene in which Joel and Ellie discover a herd of giraffes, which concept artist John Sweeney explained was designed to "reignite [Ellie's] lust for life", having suffered following her encounter with David. This may just be me, but what suffered? Ellie or her lust for life, or both. You may want to rephrase that to better explain the significance of the scene.
• This minimalist approach was also taken with the game's sound design and art design. Remove the design after sound.
• The sound department began working early on the sound of the Infected, in order to achieve the best work possible. This is a really awkward sentence, thanks in part to the double use of sound and work.
• Unlink Pittsburgh, as it should be linked in the Plot section.
• The art department were forced to fight for things that they wished to include, due to the high demand during development. Replace fight with negotiate, sounds more encyclopedic. Also, could you go into just a little more detail about the high demand? What was demanded of them?
• The team created new engines to satisfy their needs for the game. Link to game engines, as most casual readers will not know what a game engine is.
• Downloadable content (DLC) for the game was released for the game following its launch. Repetition of for the game. Simple mistake.
• The Sights and Sounds Pack included the soundtrack, a dynamic theme and two avatars. Was the dynamic theme for the home screen on the PS3? And where would the player be able to use the avatars (I'm an Xbox gamer, so I don't know a whole lot about the PlayStation, but on Xbox, players can customize their home screen with different themes, and players are given a virtual avatar they can customize. Does the PS3 have something like this?)
• Sony announced The Last of Us Remastered, an improved version of the game for the PlayStation 4. It was released on July 29, 2014 in North America.[54][a] Remastered features improved enhanced graphics... In the first sentence, changed improved to enhanced, and in third sentence, remove the enhanced.

Reception

• The word found is used 12 times, felt is used 14 times, in the Critical reception section alone, so you should try to limit the excessive use of that word.
• In the second to last paragraph of Critical reception, Oli Welsh, Andy Kelly, Matt Helgeson, and Richard Mitchell all have their full name, but it should be kept to simply their last names, to keep in line with the rest of the section.
• Sam Einhorn of GayGamer.net felt that the revelation of Bill's sexuality "added to his character ... without really tokenizing him". Why does Bill need to be linked here? Since he was already mentioned in the plot, he should be linked their, if you want to link his character. If you do this, then you need to link Tess, Henry and Sam, Marlene, etc.
• A kiss between two female characters in Left Behind was met with positive reactions. You should go into more detail about this, such as who was it (it feels a little random saying two female characters) and why was it positively received, in the same fashion Bill's sexuality was described.
• Prior to its release, it received numerous awards for its previews at E3 I feel this should go before everything in this section, since it's sandwiched in between the highest rated games of the year by MC and GR, and all the year-end lists.
• Baker won an award from Hardcore Gamer,[143] while Johnson won awards at the British Academy Video Games Awards,[114] and DICE Awards,[120] and from The Daily Telegraph. Did Baker seriously just win an award with no description? Like, Best voice actor? Same goes for Johnson.
• Naughty Dog won Studio of the Year and Best Developer from Cheat Code Central,[139] The Daily Telegraph,[118] Edge,[155] the Golden Joystick Awards[140] and Hardcore Gamer. This is almost word for word of what is in the first paragraph of the Awards section.
• At IGN's Best of 2013 Awards... What makes the IGN awards more special that it deserves its own line?

Adaptations and possible sequel

• The comics serve as a prequel to the game, chronicling the journey of a younger Ellie and another young survivor Riley. As Riley was already mentioned in the Left Behind section as being Ellie's friend, you can just simply call her Riley instead of another young survivor.
• On March 6, 2014, Sony announced that Screen Gems will distribute a film adaptation of The Last of Us, written by Neil Druckmann and produced by Sam Raimi. Remove Druckmann's first name.

Alright, that's it. All that's left is the refs section, which I'll take a look at soon, but I can tell you that ref 115 needs to be fixed, and ref 103 needs the publisher part fixed.

Thanks, Famous Hobo. I fixed your remaining issues. In regards to the reception of the kiss in Left Behind: this is explored in more detail in the article about the DLC, which is why it was only touched on briefly in here; if you think it should be removed, let me know. As for the references: I'm not sure why the URL for reference 115 isn't being accepted, but there's nothing wrong it as far as I can see (I don't think Wikipedia likes the "http://o.canada..." part). – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, sorry for a late response. So I did a small spotcheck of the refs, and everything came out good. The only remaining issue I have with the article is how Sarah and Tess are more or less thrown into the Gameplay section. When Sarah is mentioned as Joel's daughter, a casual reader will probably get confused, and ask why she doesn't play a big part in the game? Same goes for Tess, can you call to them at any point in the game for help? But they can be left if you want them. Other than that, everything else checks out. Very, very, nice article, it's pretty apparent just how much time and effort went into this, and after addressing all of my nagging issues, I can now safely give my Support. Congrats . Famous Hobo (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, Famous Hobo! I decided to remove any mention of Sarah and Tess from the Gameplay section altogether, as they're not really necessary, and only add confusion. I appreciate all of your comments. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• I noticed that the images in the gameplay section and the development section are missing alt texts
• ""Listen mode" lets players locate enemies through a heightened sense" - minor, but I would personally change this to allows, as it may sound more encyclopaedic for the lead
• "In Austin, Joel" - minor, but I would recommend Austin, Texas Disregard this as mentioned above
• "The addition of Ellie as AI was a major contributor to the engine" - I think this should be fully written out as artificial intelligent, as it's prominent in the article
• "The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing" - this sentence could to with a conjunction. How about The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, as it was pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing
• "Nightmare Bundle, released on November 5, 2013, added a collection of ten head items, nine of which are available to purchase individually" - so after purchasing the Nightmare Bundle, the player still has to buy the nine head items?
• "early access to customizable items and brawler skill for the game's multiplayer" - what is the brawler skill?
• "Mc Shea of GameSpot" - is this meant to be "McShea" or is this a pseudonym?
• "It is one of the best-selling PlayStation 3 games" - this should start with As of 2014 or 2015? Feel free to ignore
• "and the Spike VGX 2013" - why isn't this written out fully?
• "but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End (2016)" - might sound better as but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, which is scheduled for release in 2016

I'm sorry for coming late to this FAC, but as FamousHobo made a comprehensive review above, my review was slightly shortened due to various improvements already made. All in all, this is a great article! The work put into this has been impressive and admirable. No doubt I'll be support once all of the minor issues are out of the way. JAGUAR  17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jaguar! I've tried to address them all. Regarding Tom Mc Shea: that's how he spells his name, so that's how I wrote it in the article. Also, "Spike VGX" is the full name for the awards show. I should also let you know that the images aren't missing alt texts. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! With all of my concerns addressed I'll be happy to support this now. I must have got confused with another website that uses pseudonyms. JAGUAR  16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Many thanks. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Indopug

Comment since there's an article for the remaster, why mention its platform and release dates in the infobox here?—indopug (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Indopug: You bring up a good point. I want to bring up some other examples: Halo: Combat Evolved lists Xbox 360 and Xbox One in the "Platform(s)" parameter in the infobox, but does not list it in the "Release date(s)", whereas The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time does not mention the 3DS version at all. I initially followed the structure of the Grand Theft Auto V article, back when it had a separate article for the re-release, but that's an unusual case, since the re-release was the same game with the same title, and The Last of Us Remastered is different in that respect. Do you think the PlayStation 4 version should be removed from the infobox entirely, or excluded from "Release date(s)" only? – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am fine if you don't remove entirely it from the infobox, but definitely do from the Release date(s), which lists far too many for an infobox. (I edit music articles, and album infoboxes strictly require the earliest release date only—I think the same should apply for video games too)—indopug (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Couple more points:

• If you ctrl+F "game" on Firefox and hit highlight-all, you can see the word is overused throughout the article. It makes the prose repetitive and reduces readability. Other examples of repetitiveness: three paras in Critical response begin with "many reviewers" saying something about the game. The next three paras also begin very similarly.
• When you 1) say that "The Last of Us is one of the most awarded games of all time, winning over 240 Game of the Year awards" and 2) have a separate article for the awards, listing out names of innumerable magazines and awards just makes the section thoroughly unreadable. Instead include some commentary on the glut of awards? What the developers had to say in reaction? As it stands the section is basically redundant to that first sentence.

Having a relook, I think the problems stem from the fact that Reception is so long. I believe its thirteen paragraphs can be cut down to five or six more concise ones (three for summarising reviews (whether it is any good or not?), and one each for sales and awards). A lot of the stuff (about violence and sexuality for starters) in Critical response should probably be split off into an Analysis/Themes section.—indopug (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Indopug.

• You say that that the infobox lists "far too many" release dates, but with video games it's fairly common to list multiple release dates like this. There's actually a discussion about this at the moment. Regardless, I have removed mention of the PS4 from the infobox.
• I don't know if the word "game" is really overused in the article. Highlighting all instances of the word shows that it's used pretty sparingly in the first few sections, and then significantly in the Reception section, but this is simply because a lot of video game journalism publications use the word "game" in their name (Computer and Video Games, Eurogamer, Game Informer, GameSpot). Not to mention the 140 instances of the word in the references alone.
• With the Awards section, I basically copied the formula that Grand Theft Auto V (an FA) uses for its Awards section. I understand your concern, but I don't know how I'd go about rectifying it.
• As for the length of Reception: I can't see any way of cutting down the reviews into three or four paragraphs, unless entire paragraphs are basically removed, and I'm not very enthusiastic about doing that.
• I tried writing a Themes section in the past, but it was determined that the information would be better suited in Reception.

Thanks again. Let me know if you have more concerns. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 02:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Source Review from ProtoDrake

I have gone through the article using Checklinks and found no faults. But when I manually went through them, I spotted a few things that needed dealing with.

• Ref 3 has the wrong date: the cited video was published on Feb 24, 2014. Please fix this.
• I must unfortunately take responsibility for as I started the trend (before WebCite did some kind of update and made the whole thing worthless): the WebCite archived references for GameTrailers and YouTube don't work.
  • In addition, the GameTrailers urls are out of date since their website move. This can be used for the time being for the 2014 Awards. Hopefully the original GameTrailers video will come back up at some point.
• Ref 127 is inconsistent with the rest of the IGN-related citations. It needs correcting.

That's all I saw. When these concerns have been met, I'll have another look through to see if I missed anything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ProtoDrake! I went through and fixed the inconsistencies, and replaced the GameTrailers URL. Also, since YouTube and GameTrailers can't be archived properly, I removed their archive URLs; I hope this is alright. Let me know if you see any other problems. – Rhain☔1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rhain1999, thanks for the prompt response, spotted a couple of other things.

• While most of the refs are down in the reference table, a large portion of them are still in the main text. I've seen these two styles used separately, but not in a combined form. I can see the reason for using the table, but maybe you could restrict this to the larger refs that incorporate multiple citations, unless there is a reason they cannot be incorporated into the main text.
• The Joystiq and Edge links are technically dead, as they will redirect to Engadget and GamesRadar+ respectively. You need to specify that they are dead urls in the citations. Also, double-check the archived Edge urls as some of the later ones have developed a tendancy to attempt a redirect to GamesRadar+.

That's all I saw this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ProtoDrake. I addressed the Edge and Joystiq issues. The main reason that some of the references are down in the table was to avoid an unreadable "Awards" section (if you take a look, it's hard to read even when restricted to using ref names). Would it be better to move these back into the main text, or to move all of the references down the table? Unless it can stay as it is, of course. – Rhain☔1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rhain1999, that's quite reasonable, and can remain as is. I can't see any further issues, so I'll give this a Pass on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Many thanks. – Rhain☔1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85)

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the most successful period in the history of Liverpool Football Club. From 1959 to 1985, Liverpool were the most successful football club in England, as they won numerous competitions domestically and internationally. The article is in good shape and I feel it is not far off the standard required to be featured. As always, all comments and feedback are welcomed. Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

with much-needed width - what does this mean?

It's regarding the team's need for players in the wide areas of the pitch i.e. on the right and left hand side of midfield. I'll try and change this up, so it's easier to understand. NapHit (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely better, thanks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

who had been the club's left back for a number of seasons - vague - may as well put the exact number in

added the number of seasons. NapHit (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise I don't see any prose-clangers remaining though I do feel the prose could do with a little tweaking somehow. I will re-read and see if I can find something specific that is actionable.

Any further comments @Casliber:? NapHit (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

My knowledge of Liverpool isn't good. I am waiting on Dweller's appraisal to be concluded, specifically whether he feels the peacock wording and the historical context have been adequately addressed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update - Dweller was concerned about the lead and after I read it a few times I feel it is a bit too listy, I have tried to tighten it up thus to make it more engaging as it is very hard to list a whole bunch of trophies and make it sound engaging. I'll see what Dweller thinks and have another read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have some concerns about WP:PEACOCK wording throughout, borderline POV comments that come across as editorialising. I'm loathe to go through and list them all at FAC. I'd rather the nominator took on board this comment, did a scan themselves and then come back to me. This is a serious enough issue for me to go strong oppose, but it's definitely fixable. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment @Dweller:, I have taken this onboard and gone through the article and tried to remove the instances that I have found. I'd appreciate if you could have another look over, I may have left one or two in their still. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Regretful strong oppose On the basis of looking at just one paragraph in depth. This article is inadequately referenced for an FA. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Dweller, I return to England for Christmas in the next few days, so I will have access to my books and I will be able to go through the article and tidy it up and add references. NapHit (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've had a quick look over the article and added references where necessary @Dweller:. Hopefully, the article is better referenced now. NapHit (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Definite improvement. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a lack of historical context, which has a knock-on. At the start of this period, Liverpool had won just one trophy in the preceding 30 odd years. I think that's worth mentioning, as well as the glories that preceded that. However, to note a "lean spell" in the middle of this period is anachronistic. In the context of the period 1924- the anomaly was the wins, not the "lean spell". It only seems like a lean spell with our modern day perspective that rolls up the whole magnificent history of the club into one. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a fair point, especially regarding lean spell, I've changed that section to stability now and I'll added a bit about before Shankly arrived @Dweller:, though I'm not sure if it's enough. NapHit (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments - I don't doubt this is comprehensive on first glance, just think prose could be tightened in certain areas. Just some suggestions, only went as far as 'rebuilding':

• "Liverpool were in the Second Division when Shankly arrived. He decided to overhaul the team, releasing 24 players...," → "Liverpool were in the Second Division when Shankly arrived. He overhauled the team, releasing 24 players...," to cut to the chase
• "Two seasons later, the club won its first League championship since 1946–47, and Liverpool thereby qualified for continental club competition for the first time."
• "Liverpool won the European Cup in the 1976–77 season and retained it the following season campaign," change it up to avoid the repetition of 'season'
• "The 1963–64 season started poorly...," for Liverpool or the football season in general? That sentence needs a citation.
• "A 2–1 victory over Everton, there first since 1950...," their?
• "provided the impetus for Liverpool's move up the table," cut the fluff, how about 'instigated'?
• Citation to prove "Success led to the average attendance at Anfield increasing to more than 50,000."?
  • The citation at the end of the following references both sentences. I can reference both sentences if you feel this better?
• Ref 23 page number?
• Ref 56 was published on theguardian.com, not the newspaper publication. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I've left responses where necessary and addressed your comments. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I moved down to the last section and restructured a few bits (intend to copyedit in the coming days), some more comments:

• "Following their fifth-place finish in the League, the previous season, Liverpool were eager to regain the League championship," is there a quote from the manager, players or print media to support this? I do think a few direct quotes here and there from Shankly, Paisley, etc and the storied Liverpool players would enrich this article, provided they are short and snappy.
• "Liverpool retained their League championship in the 1982–83 season, winning the League by 11 points from Watford, despite a run of five defeats and two draws in their last seven games." did Liverpool secure the title before or after this happened? I think if it's the former there's no real point of mentioning it -- winning it by 11 points suggests they were in a league of their own, so every reason to be lax.
• "At the end of the season, Paisley announced that he would be stepping down as manager; he had won six League championships, three European Cups and League Cups during his reign, the most successful manager in the club's history." reads discombobulated
• "A 0–0 draw in the first match at Wembley meant that the match was replayed at Maine Road the next week," a footnote to explain why the game was replayed at Maine Road wouldn't go amiss.
  • I can't find anything in any of my books as to the reason for the replay being held at Maine Road. I can hazard a guess, but that's not good enough for wikipedia. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Guess a wikilink would be sufficient, can't find a reputable explanation. Lemonade51 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The defence of their League championship was all but over in October, when Liverpool were in the relegation zone," the relegation places, zone is a bit journalese.

The prose is sufficient, but I'm finding it rigid in parts. I do have a few Liverpool books on hand, so I'll try to see if more can be done about historical context/check you haven't omitted anything major. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, they've all been addressed and I have commented above on one. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Right I've had a go tightening up the last two sections, feel free to revert if there are any problems. Some more, all concerning 'Transition':

• "Despite Liverpool taking the lead in extra time after a goalless 90 minutes," noun + -ing form, instead of 'despite' here maybe "Although Liverpool took the lead..."
• "It was the club's eighth League title, equalling the record held by Arsenal.", ref?
• "Despite their lack of success in other competitions, Liverpool reached the final of the FA Cup against Newcastle United, winning the match 3–0 to win the cup for the second time," ref?
• "Shankly continued to turn up at Melwood, the club's training ground, where the players still to refer to him as 'boss'," still referred Lemonade51 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the further comments @Lemonade51:, they have all been addressed. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Some more:

• "The addition of Keegan almost helped Liverpool to the League championship." → "The addition of Keegan almost helped Liverpool regain the League championship."
• "A return to the European Cup in the 1966–67 season saw Liverpool eliminated in the second round by Dutch side Ajax 7–3 on aggregate", given there is an entry on this particular game, I think you could link it.
• As well as bringing in the boot room, it shouldn't be overlooked that Shankly introduced the all-red kit, which could be incorporated somewhere. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I really want this to pass. You've clearly put in a lot of work and your attitude to comments here is spot on. I've raised an issue on Cas Liber[pool]'s user talk and we'll try to get it dealt with. I'd prefer it if this nom could be held open longer than usual to give time for it to be resolved, as it's so close. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words @Dweller:, I appreciate it. It's a pleasure to work with great editors such as yourselves. Looking forward to the further comments. NapHit (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in @Dweller: and @Casliber:, what do you guys think about the article at the moment? I understand you're busy and have other commitments, but any further comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• References are formatted accordingly and consistently, six links work.
• The 'Anatomy of Liverpool' book was written by Wilson, with Scott Murray. Is that enough to warrant a co-author credit?
• I don't have access to the book sources apart from the one mentioned above. I've crosschecked a few random sources (14, 27, 41, 42, 50, 52, 82) and found no signs of close paraphrasing.
• In the first section, start of quote is unnecessarily capitalised " "YOU got a more wide-ranging discussion in the Boot Room than the boardroom."
• "Shankly's team was beginning to age, and a number of players had moved on or retired. Gerry Byrne, who had been the club's left back for 12 seasons, retired after making 273 League appearances. Shankly now had the task of replacing the players in his squad. He started the process with the purchase of Hughes and then Ray Clemence the season before, but his signings did not always work out.," this whole section needs citations, Lemonade51 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional comments @Lemonade51:, should have addressed them all. Regarding the comment directly above, the last bit is referenced by the sentence immediately after it. Also should Murray be added to all of Wilson's inline citations? NapHit (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Norodom Ranariddh

Nominator(s): Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Cambodian prince, politician and law academic. Ranariddh is the second son of Norodom Sihanouk, the late King of Cambodia. He served as the First Prime Minister of Cambodia between 1993 to 1997, under a two Prime Minister arrangement, together with Hun Sen as the Second Prime Minister. He was also the 3rd President of the National Assembly of Cambodia, serving between 1998 till 2006. The article has been promoted to GA sometime back, done many rounds of copyediting, checking, as well as a good round of Peer Review. I do not see why there is any reason that I should hold back this article any longer, and all are welcome to appraise and critique. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Phase 1

Comments This is a very good article, on an area of learning where we have very few FAs. Nevertheless, it may need more work, and while I will do my best to help during the FAC, it remains to be seen if that can be fully done. I think the two main difficulties are lack of context and various infelicities of prose.

Extended content

Lede Since you are allowed a fourth paragraph, consider splitting the first paragraph after the first two sentences. Hmm....When I was drafting the lead, my thought was to try to give each of the paragraphs an approximately equal size, partly for aesthetics and partly for Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Paragraphs, whereby concerns were mentioned on very short paragraphs. Anyway, I wrote the lead using Barack Obama as the reference point... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped? I agree that First Prime Minister and Second same, should be. I've reduced the "Prime Ministers" to small caps, throughout the text where I thought they were applicable, using Elizabeth II (the Queen vs queen) and Obama's (President vs president) as examples. However, the "First Prime Minister" is an official title, and I feel that they should be retained in big caps. Please feel free to reduce them to small caps if you feel that there are other parts that are also supposed to be reduced. Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) It may not be obvious to Americans what a "law researcher" or "law lecturer" is. Perhaps I hyperlink the "researcher" and "lecturer" articles? Mr Tan (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC) I'd backtrack here - these are common words and it would seem to be an exaggeration to hyperlink them (pardon me). I think, if readers have trouble difficulties figuring out common terms, then it would be the duty of the dictionary to enlighten the readers. Think of the case as to should we even hyperlink the word for example, Relationship? A relationship can be of a sexual/intimate nature, work-based nature, family nature. Sometimes it's apparent from the context, as we often point out. As you can see, the duty of the lead is to provide an overview, while details are meant for the article body. I think, so long as R's role as a researcher and academic is spelt out clearly in the main text, it should suffice. Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " with the Cambodian People's Party (CPP)." I can guess what this refers to but this phrase hangs off the back of the sentence without playing a proper part in its structure. Shifted this phrase to the centre of the sentence. Looks more appropriate? ..... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "publicly disputed" I'd be blunt and say "publicly argued" I thought of "arguing" as a verbal action, and "disputing" would be a more neutral choice of word. Anyway, I"ll accept... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "over issues that ranged from the implementation of construction projects, signing of property development contracts to their rival alliances with the Khmer Rouge." there's an issue surrounding the comma, which may need to be replaced by an "and". Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) " Ranariddh briefly challenged" maybe "initially" for "briefly" OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh was seen as a potential successor to Sihanouk as the next King of Cambodia," delete "the next" as surplusage. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "forcing" Ranariddh/him. Unless there's a gun to his head, I think "causing" better. YMMV, but "forcing" in my view is overused in the media. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "which selected Sihamoni to succeed Sihanouk in 2004." possibly which in 2004 selected Sihamoni as Sihanouk's successor" OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) " In March 2007, Ranariddh was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to imprisonment, which were commuted after he received a pardon in September 2008." what does "were" refer to? Rephrased. Hope it looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Early life " primary school at Norodom School " can the duplication be avoided? Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh enrolled in the undergraduate programme of law at the University of Paris. In Paris," Was it the Sorbonne? Also note 2x Paris The Sorbonne was not mentioned in anyway within Mehta's source, and I hence I can't say for sure. To do so, it may lead to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. Maybe I cite one of the phrases from the source, "...I went to the University of Paris for only one year because I was not very successful in studying in Paris, you see." Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) " differing lifestyle norms " I'd make it clearer what you are talking about here. The source states...."...He acquired the image of a playboy in the year he spent in Paris where, he admitted, he neglected his studies because of the social distractions. "It was not a question of girlfriends, it was a question of a change of lifestyle," he said. "It was very difficult to move from a boarding school where you had to be very disciplined, to the university where you were very, very free. There was a lot of freedom, you know. There was no system of control. In high school the teachers spelt out all the lessons, but in university it was a different style. Life in Paris, if you are not conscious enough, is not at all suitable for serious study." I've changed the phrase to "which he attributed to the social distractions that he encountered in Paris" - would that be better?.... Mr Tan (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Entry "After being persuaded by his father, Ranariddh eventually joined FUNCINPEC in June 1983" not sure you need both "after" and "eventually" Removed "eventually" Mr Tan (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Make clearer whether the "personal representative" was a government or party office. Well for example, Mehta (2001) - p. 67 states that "His first appointment was that of the personal representative of Sihanouk in Asia." One US congress paper, also sees Ranariddh signing off as "Norodom Ranariddh, Personal Representative of Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia." You may wish to refer to [46], which has a snippet preview. In my opinion, it would be unnecessarily long to append "Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia" part to the prose, which may make it more confusing. This was Ranariddh's official position between 1983 till 1985, based on available sources. From the context, FUNCINPEC was still a resistance party at the time, and was not a government party as yet. Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "on an interim basis at the United Nations" this also hangs off the sentence disconcertingly. / It's a bit vague what the function of the SNC was. I thought that was the best way to define the role of the SNC. I agree that it appears a bit vague, but I suppose the vagueness is inherent in its nature. I would recommend you to read Widyono's source at pp. 34-35 [47], and also [48] - p. 65. Basically, the SNC was an organisation which represented sovereign interests at the United Nations between 1990 till 1993, but it "delegated" day to day administration of Cambodia to UNTAC. If you have any proposals to make it better, I would be very keen to jointly consider with you.... Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) The "Initial Years" section needs more context. I doubt many people who will read this article from outside Cambodia are familiar with the system of government. I can't personally tell if Ranariddh is getting these office because of competence, parentage, or a combination. If I interpret your issue of context correctly, I suppose one area of your concern might be the text be "In March 1985, Ranariddh was appointed the inspector-general of the Armee Nationale Sihanoukiste (ANS), the armed forces of FUNCINPEC. In January 1986, Ranariddh was promoted to commander-in-chief and chief-of-staff for ANS." From the two sentences, you may be thinking who had actually appointed Ranariddh to the posts. From my contact time with the resources available, we can assume that it was probably his father, Sihanouk. The closest source that came to imply that Sihanouk elevated his son to the positions maybe found at Mehta (2001), p. 184 - [After he was removed in a coup in 1970, he persuaded Ranariddh to join him in his campaign to topple the Lon Nol regime. Sihanouk saw in Ranariddh a potential leader a quality he realised was missing in his other children. Ranariddh was elevated to the rank of Inspector General of the armee nationale sihanoukienne (ANS) in March 1985. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief, and Chief of Staff of the ANS in January 1986. Sihanouk's reliance on Ranariddh only grew after the signing of the Paris peace accord in 1991 that ended the civil war. The crowning glory was when Ranariddh became the head of his father's party, Funcinpec.] However, the source did not explicitly state that Sihanouk was personally involved in the promotion, and other sources that I have so far came across such as Narong, Ranariddh's autobiography only stated his appointments without really attributing to who did the promotions. If I were to slip in "Sihanouk promoted his son to the position of inspector general" and so on, and there is some other editors with the same sources do a spotcheck, I might be faulted for Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text.E2.80.93source_integrity. Mr Tan (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC) In line with the material provided from the sources, I have expanded a little more on Ranariddh's entry into FUNCINPEC in 1983. Hope this helps! Mr Tan (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "attacks and killings of low-level party officials from government troops, who were wary of FUNCINPEC's influence in the country" Why? And there's being wary and then there's killing people. Rephrased the sentence - hope the point looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "chief-de-mission" is this anything like a chef-de-mission? OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "not to use Sihanouk's name for the election" maybe "for the election" should be "during the campaign". Added the word Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "threatened to secede eight eastern provinces from Cambodia" Can secede be used to refer to something else besides the subject? I can't figure out what you are proposing to amend for this point....to me, the sources states very clearly that Chakrapong and Sin Song plotted and led secession campaign in June 1993. You may wish to directly look at Google Books [49] Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Head of State" lower case (2x) I have reduced the second one, considering the sentence structure, but the first one should be kept. The "Head of State" is a formal position, just like the King and Prime Minister. If this is to be reduced, then the "King" may also needs to be reduced. Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "and completed in early September 1993." needs "was" before completed. OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) More once I see how these go down.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks! OK - I have addressed some of the issues which you have raised, and will look through the points by-and-by. Personally, I am amendable to revisiting a point more than once if need be. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to bring up additional points which you feel needs ratification or clarification. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Update: I have looked into all issues pointed out above, and am welcome to all fellow editors in suggesting, or pointing out more areas that can be improved further. I also welcome everybody to express their thoughts on this article's FA-worthiness. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Resuming. Due to travel and commitments to do other reviews, and the fact that this is requiring considerable comment by me, which takes time, this is going to be piecemeal: Lede response: I think you have to consider if you are going to be able to draw the reader into the article with a short opening paragraph, or a long one. Symmetry and even paragraphs are all well and good, but we are trying to transmit information. I don't agree that a starting paragraph of moderate length would compromise drawing a reader's attention as compared to a short one. If so, then this would imply that other FAs besides Barack Obama, but also those of Benjamin Harrison and Calvin Coolidge should need serious reconsideration. My original lead (prior to 17 Dec) has a lead that is based on Obama's style. I"ll concede on this point, as I have an impression that quite a number of articles such as Elizabeth II and John McCain have short starting paragraphs. While I have done as you have suggested, but personally, I don't really agree on this. As Wikipedia is a "free to edit" place, we should also think of making lasting edits. Perhaps, one, two or more years down the road, some unscrupulous editors can just merely siphon off the 3 lead paragraphs into an independent section, which is against Wikipedia:MoS. The fate of this article, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's lead, is exactly what I am concerned with. I think using this format, would make it more tempting to unscrupulous editors to make such edits like Thieu's...... Mr Tan (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC) FAs, like other articles, tend to deteriorate over time from edits unless maintained. I'm not sure what to tell you about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Never mind, let us just say that I don't agree with this suggested edit, but I"ll accept for now. Mr Tan (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Initial years I think Bangkok does not need a country inline. I remembered somewhere (either in one of the GA or PR reviews) that as a matter of clarity, it would be good to provide the country after the city. Not all readers might be able to link a city to a country, hence the context-setting.... Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) If the city's famous enough, it isn't necessary. I think it's famous enough, but if you feel otherwise, I won't press the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) This subsection seems rather dry, containing only R's appointments. Did he ever speak to the media? Do we know his views on events during the decade plus covered by this section. I recalled that there were a few newspaper articles that Ranariddh used to give his opinion on the state of tripartite talks at that time. However, as I thought that they were not really significant, I thought that it would be better not to include them, as he was still not very notable during this point of his career. However, since you have raised this issue, I will run through the reference materials and add in one or two lines on this.... Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Update Hi Wehwalt, I have gone through the reference materials, and while Ranariddh did sporadically give one or two interviews here and there, I'm afraid to say that there's really very little to say about his career between 1983 till 1990, although he did a couple of things mentioned in Mehta's biography. Examples (1) Making a brazen attempt into PRK-controlled territory in 1986 (2) Brokering peace talks between Sihanouk and Hun Sen - it was a claim that he made, not backed by any other sources; (3) Making a visit to the US to meet with President Bush for additional arms to the ANS, a request was initially accepted, but later rejected in 1990. (4) A Singapore press report on a split within ANS/FUNCINPEC, with Ranariddh saying that there were "6000 troops in Cambodia" (which, in my opinion, is not really relevant for the purposes of a biographical article) [50] As you can see, he was not really a major personality as yet during this period of time (1980s). Furthermore, the information that I have gathered are so far quite vague and incomplete - just one isolated piece of information for each event, it would be difficult to write them coherently without making points "hangs off the sentence disconcertingly", concerns which you have expressed earlier. I would think that the highlight of Ranariddh's life career would be the 1990s, when he won the 93 elections, becoming Prime Minister and most notably, the 1997 armed clashes (or coup), in which he was ousted from power. Doing a quick run through of the news sources attributed to him at [51], you may wish to note that 90-95% of news sources are about him from the 1990s. Thus, I can safely say that he is barely notable during the 1980s. With all these in mind, and keeping the cohesiveness of the prose in mind, I would think it would be best to leave the section as it is - besides copyedits, in view of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects on notability and the availability of sufficient/complete information Mr Tan (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC) 1993 " FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country, provoking much consternation from the latter." This may seem odd to a Western reader, where it is the opposition's job to criticise the government. I think, you need to note that criticisms started as a prelude to the 1993 Cambodian general elections, when both parties (FCP and CPP) were about to compete against each other. They were on opposing sides back then. Perhaps for your understanding, the relevant source states: "There were no real obstacles," he said. "Hun Sen controlled everything, and the atmosphere in Phnom Penh was normal. There was no immediate threat. But after we transformed Funcinpec from a movement into a political party, we were very aggressive in our words against Hun Sen. When Hun Sen saw clearly that the alliance [between Funcinpec and the CPP] would not work anymore, relations worsened." ... There was little to smile about when it came to the vexed alliance of Funcinpec and Hun Sen's CPP. Their political agreement lay in tatters following allegations that the latter party had intimidated and murdered candidates of Funcinpec. Ranariddh said that agreement between them was "in a bad shape". For its part, the CPP accused Funcinpec of being financed by the Khmer Rouge. But Ranariddh said: "Please do not believe I have got US$6 million from Mr Pol Pot." ... Mr Tan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC) It may need a little more context, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) I think there are a few ways I can approach this issue. Firstly, I can remove the second part of the affected phrase, but I guess readers would probably be wondering "FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country". "And so, what about it?" kind of thoughts. Secondly, I can also propose writing this (note the bolded part) "At the same time, FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country, provoking much consternation from the latter which had maintained coordial ties with FUNCINPEC since 1991.", but it appears to me that readers would be wondering further down the road "what about "coordial ties"?" As I see it, it probably ends up with a story that "snowballs" the more as we elaborate... As much as we can try to make all the contexts conjoin and be comprehensive, nothing can be "waterproof". Personally, I think the best way would be to leave this point as it is. But if you strongly feels that it needs to be attended to, I"ll take either of the 2 approaches which you think best.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "declared their opposition to the announcement" possibly "to the plan" rather than "to the announcement" OK Mr Tan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "threatened to secede eight eastern provinces from Cambodia." I don't think that "to secede" can be used in this way, you can't secede someone else, all you can do is secede yourself. Changed to: "to secede eight eastern provinces from the rest of Cambodia" Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "and included an agreement" this is a sufficiently different subject than the earlier part of the sentence and so probably should start a new sentence. Co-premiership "out of fear in igniting a civil war with the CPP" of rather than in. OK. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "mutually agreeing on most policy decisions made[42] until early 1996.[43]" Reading this, it seems to me that source 43 must contain the information in 42, just time limited to 1996. Does it? Yes. I gave double quote just to be on the safe side, not wanting to be caught over "text source integrity" issues as far as possible. As Source 42 does not explicitly indicate that the honeymoon ended in early 1996. Source 42: "...the state during the 1993-95 period and partly with a less violent society. The coalition government functioned better than previous regimes. The two Prime Ministers agreed on major policies. Ranariddh worked well with Hun Sen to the extent that he was even willing to silence or purge his own dissenting party members. Moreover, the state did not face a threat from Sihanouk and the rebels, as the Khmer Republic did." Source 43: "Until recently, Ranariddh had echoed Hun Sen's enthusiasm for the coalition government. Together they had shared the glory, the lucrative contracts and at least formally the power as well. ..." It's unclear why joining the Francophonie was controversial. Expanded somewhat - hope it looks clearer now. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh and Hun Sen jointly applied to make the country a member" wasn't the country actually applying, and the two just officials signing on its behalf? The sources states as follows: "Prince Norodom Ranariddh and Hun Sen, co-chairmen of Cambodia's interim administration, wrote a letter on July 28 to Head of State Prince Norodom Sihanouk, asking for his advice. "The provisional government sees the proposal for full membership to the Association of French Speaking Countries as important and useful for our country at this moment," the letter said." Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Maybe "joined in an application" for "applied?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) " technical assistance in supporting Cambodia's language curricula" This seems vague Never mind, I"ll remove that point, replacing it with another that can be more clearly explained. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "As Ranariddh saw it, these countries are characterised by hybrid regimes, active economic interventionism and limited press freedom, served as good models to propel Cambodia's socio-economic growth." There's a grammar issue here, possibly replacing "are" with a comma would do it. That was the original form Brian did while he did CE, as I thought a second comma after 2 words looks inappropriate. Anyway I've restored the point here. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Well, there's still an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) The mentions of Singapore Malaysia and Indonesia can surely be limited to once here. And it seems to me you are running around the point. He felt that Cambodia should worry about economic development first and human rights later. How do you suggest in going about condensing the content so that the countries maybe mentioned once? To me, I can only think of removing a part or a whole of this sentence, [In the initial months of the administration, Ranariddh actively courted political leaders from various regional countries, including Indonesia,[47] Singapore[48] and Malaysia, with a view to encourage investment in Cambodia.], but doing so can leave a gap in context... Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Just say he admired S M and I, and invited leaders from those countries. That sort of thing. That way you are keeping relevant content together.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "As the chairman of the CDC, Ranariddh gave his approval to at least 17 business contracts submitted by Malaysian businessmen between August 1994 and January 1995." there's no hint as to how significant this is. I thought the next sentence after this explains the significance - in the sense that, the nature/type of contracts that were awarded? Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) " luxury cruiser" possibly "luxury cruise ship" as "cruiser" as regards ships, is ambiguous. We have articles on most cruise ships, do we know the ship's former name before being brought to Cambodia? From the source, the cruise liner is "Heritage". I checked the disambig page for "Heritage", but I can't see anyone pointing to a cruiser or a ship.... Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Cambodian government was unable ... were eager" Depending on ENGVAR, either singular or plural might be right. Both are not correct. Removed the "were". I"ll take the Cambodian government as a single entity. Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "more trees continued to be fallen" felled for fallen. OKMr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Conflicts "but both prime ministers became uncomfortable working with Rainsy, because of his pursuit of corruption allegations from within the government" uncomfortable may be too sympathetic a term. What word do you propose to change? Sources: [52], [53] "Rainsy's questionings sowed unhappiness from the Ranariddh" huh? Corrected Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "who expelled Rainsy from FUNCINPEC in May 1994.[62] The following month, Ranariddh introduced a parliamentary motion to remove Rainsy as a Member of Parliament (MP) in June 1995.[66]" There seems to be an error in dates here, or perhaps it is inadequately explained, as "the following month" seems to me to be June 1994. Sorry - an honest mistake, corrected Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Hun Sen submitted a government circular to reinstate January 7, the anniversary of the liberation of Phnom Penh by the Vietnamese forces from the Khmer Rouge, as a national holiday. Ranariddh had complied by countersigning the circular, which incurred the ire of Sihanouk and several FUNCINPEC leaders" It may not be obvious to readers what "countersigning" did, nor the nature of R's compliance. "adding his signature"? I think the compliance was part of the still-good working relationship which Ranariddh and Hun Sen still had at that point of time, but it's not explictly stated or explained in the sources. Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Complying is generally in response to a request. Possibly "agreed" or "concurred" might be better. Done Mr Tan (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "bordering Vietnam" surely unnecessary. It's necessary - otherwise context would appear ambiguous. Sources: [54], [55] "Ranariddh intended to test Hun Sen's response over his accusations, of which the latter chose to remain quiet" multiple grammar problems, "response" and "over" do not match, and I'm not sure where the "of which" is coming from. Changed "over" to "to". Will be glad if you can fix the "of which" if you think it still looks inappropriate. Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) " for which he had signed an earlier agreement with Ariston in January 1995" "earlier" can be deleted, it is implied. OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "In an apparent act of retaliation" I think an inline source necessary here. OK Mr Tan (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "in the country, citing the absence of casino laws in the country" 2x "in the country", should be avoided. Changed to "by-laws"? Mr Tan (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "arranging a meeting" If R was there, then the language is fine, though R's presence should be mentioned. If he was not, then "arranging a" should be deleted. OK, done Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "CPP's outstanding delays in appointing FUNCINPEC district officials as district chiefs." I am not sure what the "outstanding" adds here. Sorry...wrong choice of word Mr Tan (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC) More as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC) All addressed (except for one) Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Addressed the final point. Mr Tan (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Phase 2

Extended content

Conflicts "in May 1995.[62] The following month, Ranariddh introduced a parliamentary motion to remove Rainsy as a Member of Parliament (MP) in June 1995.[66]" I would strike either "the following month" or "in June 1995". Ok Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "and questioned the CPP's of their delays in appointing FUNCINPEC district officials as district chiefs." this doesn't make sense. Sorry, typo Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "A month after the FUNCINPEC congress, Ranariddh, while vacationing in Paris, attended a meeting with Sihanouk, Rainsy, Chakrapong and Sirivudh on 27 April." Since we know that the congress happened in March, saying a month after that, and also the date, seems redundant. If I remove the month, the sentence structure would appear disjointed. I would prefer the date, as specific information is more useful Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Sihanouk issued a declaration praising Hun Sen and the CPP and stating that FUNCINPEC had no intention of leaving the coalition government and dissociated themselves from anti-CPP protests" Two issues. There are multiple "ands" and also it is not very clear who "themselves" refers to. The sentence, basically, is confusing. I"ll remove the protests issue, since it is not found in this area of the text. Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "his discomfort in his relations " I'm not sure you have discomfort in relations. Sounds vague, I agree. I changed the word, "tenacious" Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "of absconding construction funds" I don't think absconding is the proper verb here. Source: "In addition, he said that FUNCINPEC's Ek Sereywath, the weapons procurer for RCAF, had failed to deliver the procurement order he was entrusted with, and that Ing Kiet had failed to purchase construction material with the $1 million allocated to him..."[56], from the source, I thought this was the right word to surmise Hun Sen's accusations against Ing Kieth. Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Conflict escalation. "On 11 October 1996, Ranariddh visited Ieng Sary in his fiefdom at Pailin, which prompted Hun Sen to make similar visits on 23 October and 11 December 1996." I would delete the second 1996. He made 2 visits on 2 seperate days. Added a "two" Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "conveyed a threat" maybe, "threatened" OKMr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) and stated his intent to lead the NUF in competing against the CPP in the general elections scheduled to be held in 1998" I would delete "in competing" as implied the second paragraph seems very inconsistent on whether there is a "the" before the initials of a political party. Ok. I like to seek your advice here. My impression was that news articles, videos often use to refer "....the CPP.", but very seldom "...the FUNCINPEC" except for rare cases. It just came to me intuitively that the word "the" is used just before CPP, based on what I have read so far, and using "the FUNCINPEC" just kind of sounds wrong. What do you suggest? Sample sentences from the prose: (1) "Ranariddh became the First Prime Minister of Cambodia while Hun Sen, who was from the CPP, became the Second Prime Minister." (2) The CPP carried out attacks and killings against low-level FUNCINPEC officials using police forces under their command, .... (3) When Sihanouk formed FUNCINPEC in 1981, Ranariddh initially declined his father's invitation to join the party as he disagreed with its association with the Khmer Rouge. – If I remove "the" from one and two, it would seems kind of wrong to me, like wise adding "Sihanouk formed the FUNCINPEC". Please feel free to advise, if you wish, remove "the" accordingly from parts of the prose as deemed appropriate.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) " In response, Ranariddh wrote a letter in late February 1997 to Ariston Berhad's president Chen Lip Keong, to declare the agreements signed with Sok An as null and void." this seems unnecessarily wordy. Maybe "In response, Ranariddh declared the agreements signed with Sok An null and void in a February 1997 letter to ..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) You should not have "In response" following "in response". OK - accidentally duplicated while I was expanding the prose Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh's letters, and in April 1997 he separately sent a letter to Mahathir to reassure him" I would change, after the comma to "and in April 1997 he wrote to Mahathir assuring him ..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "should the CPP win in the subsequent general election" maybe, "should the CPP win he next general election" OK Mr Tan (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) " they jointly communiqué pledging mutual support" This reads very oddly. Sorry, I missed out on impt words Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) You are using communique as a verb and I don't think you can in that manner. Possibly "they issued a joint communique pledging mutual support" "Sihanoukville" why linked? Removed Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Some of the arms ..." this sentence strikes me as unnecessary detail. Reworded that phrase. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "between bodyguard troops separately working for Ranariddh and Hun Sen" maybe "between Ranariddh's and Hun Sen's bodyguards." OK. I thought of writing in this manner initially as I thought it would make the point clearer Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure of the implications of the word "aligned" nor why it is suddenly being heavily-used. The soldiers in the Cambodian Armed Forces (during the 1990s) maybe classified into 2 groups, one group professes loyalty to politicians from the Cambodian People's Party, another to politicians to FUNCINPEC. It's very unique to this case, while politics and military are technically two seperate issues, but in this case, political loyalties have seeped through their way into the Armed forces, and research sources in this period of Cambodian history uses similar lingo. Alternatively, I can opt to use the terms "pro CPP troops" and "pro FUNCINPEC troops"? Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Mention who they are up front, and be reasonably consistent so that the reader always knows who is being talked about. Doesn't the phrases "RCAF troops factionally aligned to FUNCINPEC...", "The rocket launchers were seized by Cambodian Air Force officers aligned to the CPP, ..." clear enough? The whole picture is this - There is this Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF), which is officially a single entity but there are 2 seperate factions, one to the CPP and another to FUNCINPEC. The factions are not official, but many historians have noted that it existed during the 1990s. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " suffered major casualties after further fighting" more likely, during it. OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Exile "simultaneously accusing him" Simultaneously is probably not needed. OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " Ranariddh snubbed at Hun Sen's suggestion, and threatened to boycott the elections if he was required to face any of such charges" possibly "Ranariddh threatened to boycott the election if he was required to face charges." OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) You previously called O'Smach as O Smach Removed Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "whose charges were subsequently nullified after he received a pardon from Sihanouk" perhaps "but was pardoned by Sihanouk." A Pardon does not necessarily exonerate a person, it may just merely reduce a sentence. Hence I thought this should be clarified. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh was convicted by the military court" I would add in absentia and say "a military court" as you have not previously mentioned one. OK - but I added the word after the "sentencing" as this word is used in cases like "sentenced to death in absentia..." Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh returned to Cambodia at the end of March 1998 to lead FUNCINPEC's election campaign.[105] The campaign focused on pro-monarchical sentiments[106] and anti-Vietnamese rhetoric.[107] " the double use of "campaign" can be avoided by combining the two sentences. OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "hindrances," not a common word, esp in this context. Propose "obstacles" OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "as well as its supporters facing blockades to rallies" maybe "and its supporters often had trouble getting to rallies" OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The number of seats in parliament won by the other major parties should be stated, as it is more meaningful than raw vote. OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "while the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), which was renamed from the KNP and led by Sam Rainsy," to avoid too obviously stating what is probably fairly obvious (that Rainsy led the party named for him), suggest that after the comma it be "which had been renamed from Rainsy's KNP" OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "carried out voter intimidation" maybe "intimidated voters" OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "He summoned Hun Sen, Ranariddh and Rainsy, for discussions aimd at a political solution." the comma after Rainsy should probably go. OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Did the 24 September meetings take place, or were they canceled? It's unclear if the rocket was fired whilst going to or coming from. The meeting did take place in the end, but because of the incident it was very hostile. Anyway I don't think it was very important to state whether the meeting occured in the end - though I have added a little more details about the firing incident. Source: [57] They left the country for what, two weeks? I think that if the police threat was enough to make them go, you have to say what made them feel able to return. Expanded, hope this looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "which saw Ranariddh negotiating with Hun Sen and Chea Sim for the structure of a new government." maybe "on for "from" OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) President "According to Indian academic Harish Mehta, the creation of the Senate was to provide an alternative platform to pass legislation in the event that Ranariddh exerts his influence as the President of the National Assembly to veto laws" the present tense is incorrect "exerts", should be "exerted". I'd also change the final two words to "block legislation". OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "the FUNCINPEC army" Are these the bodyguards of previous sections? If so, be consistent. OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "He also participated in efforts to seek better relations with Vietnam" I would strike the word "seek". It's implied. Changed to "foster". But you need a linking word, otherwise the sentence structure would be jarring Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "onwards as fresh incidents of border clashes erupted" maybe "amid renewed border clashes" would cut to the point. OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh steered FUNCINPEC towards political rapprochement with the CPP, and actively discouraged FUNCINPEC ministers and MPs from criticising them. During the party's congress in March 2001, Ranariddh declared the CPP an "eternal partner"" Ranariddh is making the CPP singular, but you have it as a plural noun (implied from "criticising them" in the previous sentence. I'd rephrase the final clause to avoid the clash, maybe by deleting "with the CPP" earlier in the sentence and changing the final clause to "from criticising the CPP". This also gives the reader credit for some intelligence, because the reader surely knows or can infer with whom the reconciliation is supposed to be. You made a good point on this, I've amended slightly. Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh's leadership as early as 1999, when rumours of Ranariddh accepting bribes from the CPP" to avoid the repetition, suggest after the comma, "when rumours he had accepted bribes from the CPP" OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "The following month, Khan Savoeun, a senior FUNCINPEC leader accused You Hockry, a fellow party leader, of engaging in corruption and nepotism in his capacity as the co-Minister of the Interior, which factors had contributed to the party's poor election performance" this can be boiled down to "The following month, senior party leader Khan Savoeun accused You Hockry, the co-Minister of the Interior, or corruption and nepotism, acts Savoeun said had helped alienate voters" OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The final two sentences of the second paragraph can be merged to avoid repetitions. You mean "Both new parties attracted sizeable numbers of FUNCINPEC defectors, who were apparently unhappy with Ranariddh's leadership. The defections caused Ranariddh to fear that FUNCINPEC would fare poorly in the 2003 general elections."? I don't see repetitions here Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "had engineered its election victory by manipulating vote counts and intimidating the electorate" maybe "had won through fraud and voter intimidation" OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Hun Sen rejected their demands, and several FUNCINPEC's activists were subsequently assassinated." I think you need to show a connection here, sourced inline, otherwise it's basically after a discussion of the 1963 World Series "The Yankees lost the World Series, and President Kennedy was subsequently assassinated." I"ll remove the assasinations then. From what I read, political assasinations against FUNCINPEC and SRP politicians appear to come from the CPP, but they can't be conclusively linked to Hun Sen. Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Expulsion "On 2 March 2006, the national assembly" why the sudden lower case? Changed Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "after FUNCINPEC party reports have suggested" delete "have" OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "which led to Ranariddh was ouster from his position as FUNCINPEC's President.[133] In turn, he was given the titular position of "historic president"." should start "which led to Ranariddh's ouster ..." president should be lower case; in turn should be in return. Changed Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " Nhek Bun Chhay justified Ranariddh's ouster to deteriorating relations between the latter with Hun Se" suggest "attributed" for "justified" and instead of "deteriorating relations between the latter with Hun Sen" to "his deteriorating relations with Hun Sen. You use "his" later in the sentence to refer to R. so it doesn't increase ambiguity. OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Recent etc. Ranariddh was expelled from the National Assembly as its MP. Possibly "the National Assembly expelled Ranariddh as an MP" OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) --Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Will look through all concerns and arrears during Christmas. Mr Tan (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) And the rest. "Ranariddh's half-brother Chakrapong was also expelled from the party, and joined the NRP as the party's deputy president" is this relevant? Since Chakrapong has not been mentioned to this point, why bother now? Or is he the Norodom Chakrapong previously mentioned? I'm not certain of naming practices. Yes, press Ctrl + F - I had mentioned Chakrapong in several instances. Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "before the court's sentencing" probably just "before sentencing" or "before the sentencing" would be ample. OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " communicated to NRP party members" with, not to, unless it was one-way. it's one-way, from the source. "Though stuck in self-imposed exile overseas, party President Prince Norodom Ranariddh addressed, by long-distance telephone call, the approximately 2,000 on hand Thursday." Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Was the pardon how the possible secret deal was consummated? If there are RS that think that, it might be wise to put the two events in the same paragraph. Do the RS that talk about the "secret deal" connect the two? I can't figure out what you meant by "RS". But if I got you correctly, I would prefer to keep the first sentence of the new paragraph "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon from Sihamoni for his embezzlement conviction..." as it is, because it sort-of illustrate a new chapter of his post-turbulence life in exile (2007-8). Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "in accusing the Election Commission for election irregularities" possibly "in faulting the Electoral Commission of irregularities". (to avoid the clash of "accusing/accusations" The complaint was regarding the commission itself, right? OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The CRPP and People's sections are not long enough to justify separation, at least at this time. Suggest they be combined under an appropriate title of your choice. I don't get you for the "People's section". But for the "Return to FUNCINPEC", I don't see any reason why it should be merged, as I do not see it being specified under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies or anywhere else, unless you can point out to me that it's recommended otherwise. As I see it, they are two very seperate, but significant events of Ranariddh's life and two seperate sections are justifiable from this view. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh launched a party congress" perhaps "held" for "launched" OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "He also managed to convince the congress" At least in American English, "managed to convince" is usually meant to disparage a decision and even hint that it was done in some nefarious way. I"ll remove "managed" - allow me to ask an off-the-cuff question....are you making the recommendations based on BrE or AmE standards? Hope to get an understanding here, as my impression is that people using two different varieties of English may have conflicting expectations on prose, I don't know.... Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh was a recipient" as he's still alive, suggest "has been" for "was" OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "by the La Francophonie in March 2000." I would cut the "the" as the next word serves that purpose. OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Sihamoni is linked at I think the third or fourth use. I wonder if the secession discussion should be inserted chronologically among his political activities? I mean, it's all part of the same thing, plainly royalty are part of politics in a very active way in Cambodia. It will require a radical restructuring of the entire article. As I see it, the main sections are dedicated to Ranariddh's life and career. Ranariddh's succession candidacy was a side issue that came up on and off throughout his life. It's a side attraction, but still a notable enough issue to merit mention here as it has been discussed in academic texts and by pronouncements from the royal palace. As for the secession attempt by Chakrapong, while both Ranariddh and Chakrapong are brothers, I must say that the secession attempt is a political affair, not so much a matter of royalty. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) In December 2008, Sihamoni appointed Ranariddh as the President of the Supreme Privy Council of Cambodia. Ranariddh's royal appointment carries an honorary position that provides an equivalent rank to that of prime minister,[159] and during an interview in December 2010 Ranariddh revealed that his royal appointment entitles him to a monthly salary of three million rials." Suggest that the first full stop be made a comma, then "carrying an honorary rank equal to that of prime minister, and, according to Ranariddh in a December 2010 interview, a salary of three million rials a month." OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " had indicate no preference" indicated, not indicate. This assumes they had no preference who should be king, not that they wanted no one to be king. OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) You are inconsistent in your capitalization of King I had edited earlier based in accordance to your concern: "Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped?" For one, the word "King" maybe part of an official title, and for two, it maybe part of a noun within the sentence structure. I had changed them using Elizabeth II as reference, whereby "Queen" vs "queen" are alternately used. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Personal "have made such references from their discourse with him" maybe "have so stated after meeting with him" OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Possibly mention that Monineath is the queen mother. I already mentioned "who was Sihamoni's mother,"...would the sentence look a little too long if I add that in as well? Anyway, in Sep 2004 she was not yet the Queen Mother. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The newspaper name needs italics OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Sihanouk possesses" past tense, surely. OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Family "in an explosion" what kind of explosion? Bomb? Water boiler? OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Raja Bori, as a film title, should be italicised each time it is mentioned (as it was in the previous section) That's it for now. I'll take another look once my colleagues have batted. I think Brianboulton was next. The article is good, but there's just a lot of prose issues and such that are going to need straightening out, and there's no point in my doing another pass through until they've looked at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Ok. I"ll look through the article another time over the next few days, taking into account all the suggestions and concerns that you have laid out above. Mr Tan (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC) I have looked through all suggestions laid out above and fixed where appropriate and necessary. If you feel that there still are jarring concerns that renders this article unfit for FA, please do not hesitate to express your concerns here, and I"ll be happy to try my best to discuss and work them out. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Phase 3

I've made a second pass through and made a number of edits. I am prepared to support if they, for the most part, stand (I'm prepared to discuss any and all, but in general I think I've helped improve the article) and if the following additional comments are addressed.

Extended content

Further comments 1993 elections What was in Bangkok that R. would travel there? Should be mentioned to explain. I thought the follow up phrase "where he took charge of the party's diplomatic and political activities in Asia" explains sufficiently? Anyway, the book quote states: "moved to Bangkok in July 1983. They rented a spacious, plant-filled villa at Soi Prapini], off Sathorn Road. Living in the relative safety of Bangkok, they were just an hour away from Phnom Penh by air, and could keep an eye on goings-on in the Heng Samrin regime." I think that, from the phrase, as Bangkok is much closer to Phnom Penh than Paris, it was much more strategic and convenient to move to Bangkok to manage party from there as compared to Paris. But I don't think any further elaboration would be necessary. Mr Tan (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC) The UNTAC election rule not to name the king. The reason for this should be stated. Added a phrase to the back of the sentence. Hopefully this closes the circle... Mr Tan (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Head of state is inconsistently capitalised. Also prime minister. You did ask previously about this question "Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped? I agree that First Prime Minister and Second same, should be.", and my reply was "I've reduced the "Prime Ministers" to small caps, throughout the text where I thought they were applicable, using Elizabeth II (the Queen vs queen) and Obama's (President vs president) as examples. However, the "First Prime Minister" is an official title, and I feel that they should be retained in big caps. Please feel free to reduce them to small caps if you feel that there are other parts that are also supposed to be reduced." You did not follow up on my reply and I assumed that what I amended was correct. Mr Tan (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) So should all be used in big caps, or leave them all as it is? You appear to be giving conflicting signals on this part.... Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Co- "insider trading" Do you actually mean insider trading or some other form of corruption? I think it's a wrong choice of words on my part. Based on Wikipedia's article, that's too far off the cuff. If you read the source with the starting paragraph "But sources say, the Cambodian Development Council - the "one-stop-shopping" entity for foreign..." it is much more apparent that some sort of bribes or kickbacks are negotiated behind the scenes, though not directly published. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Ariston conceded the operations of the luxury cruiser, named Heritage, to Unicentral Corporation." I don't know what this means. Did the ship stay there? Did it go somewhere else? If it had no further connection to Cambodia, other than the occasional call, I'd say "Ariston chartered the cruiser, ..." Never mind, I"ll remove the final sentence altogether. My impression is that Ariston sort of "subcontracted" the main deal to Unicentral, though this has nothing directly to do with Ranariddh. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "provided a lucrative backdoor source of revenue" such as? "Cash" revenue. Brian had previously discussed this point specifically in his comments here @ FAC below. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Escalation You might want to mention how the whole Iang Sary thing turned out, since you give the readers several sentences of setup, but you don't actually get to the point, which was, I understand, that Sary and his faction reintegrated into the political structure. The thing is, the Khmer Rouge between 1996-8 were also factionally divided, and two of the most prominent leaders to ally themselves with the Cambodian government were Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary. While Khieu Samphan was pretty steadfast with his political sympathies with Ranariddh/FUNCINPEC at least until 1998, Ieng Sary vacilitated in his sympathies between the CPP and FUNCINPEC, and as you can see he entertained both rival PMs when they visited Pailin. At the point of December 1996, the sources appear to imply (but did not explicitly state) that Ieng Sary maintained friendly ties with both rival PMs. When Ranariddh was ousted in July 1997, Ieng Sary briefly denounced the violent clashes by the CPP against FUNCINPEC, but later changed his stance and opted to support Hun Sen. Khieu Samphan's troops at Anlong Veng, on the other hand, continued to support FUNCINPEC troops. On your suggestion, I have thought of incorporating some information on Ieng Sary's alliance with FUNCINPEC, but I'm not sure if it is a wise decision to do so. Firstly, there is no information on Ieng Sary's relations with Hun Sen or Ranariddh until July 1997, and that was the reason why I ended the paragraph with the helicopter shooting threat. Secondly, if you think it's necessary to elaborate further, then it would probably go into the subsection "Exile, return and 1998 elections". But I do not think that Ieng Sary continued to remain as primary party between Hun Sen and Ranariddh's relations after 1997 clashes, hence I thought it was not very worthwhile to mention it further. I think the main focus in Ranariddh's ouster after July 1997 would be his diplomatic efforts to secure political support with foreign leaders, and the internal events directly affecting Ranariddh. As for as Ieng Sary's relationship with FUNCINPEC/Ranariddh relations thereafter, I am of the opinion that any additional information elaborating switching of sympathies between Hun Sen and Ranariddh on the part of Ieng Sary, would be better off in the DNUM article or other ancillary articles. As I see it, I find it difficult in envisioning as to how I would not make the prose and context more convoluted and ambiguous if we may want to push for more information on this part... Mr Tan (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC) On afterthought, perhaps my insistence with specific dates makes the context harder to understand. I have rephrased the first paragraph, hopefully it looks more palatable and smoother now anyway.... Mr Tan (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Exit from FUNCINPEC and later You might want to explain why in 2006 they voted to make constitutional amendments easier etc, as an introductory sentence or two to this section. Worked on that. Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC) " and tendered his resignation as the president of NRP" is FUNCINPEC intended? you have not mentioned his being president of NRP. Done Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC) General question which should perhaps be mentioned when you mention the succession: why did Sihanouk abdicate? His article is vague on the subject. There were at least two instances when he wanted to abdicate, the first being in 1997 and the second in 2004 (which actually materialise), but over different reasons. I have worked on the 2004 already, will be working on the 1997 one soon. Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Notify me when I'm done. I'm going to be having limited internet so will not be on as much as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

All addressed, hopefully satisfactorily. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support I thought I had supported already, but it may have been lost in an edit conflict or some such. I also congratulate Mr Tam on fine work, and look forward to more of the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Sources review: I intend to add comments when Wehwalt finishes his pass, meantime I have looked at the sources and referencing:

Extended content

ref 48: The link goes not to the source article but to a procedures page. On clicking the appropriate button, I reached a page which informed me: "This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries." This restriction needs to be noted within the citation. Dear Brian, I just did a check, should I use "registration" or "subscription"? Because as per Template:Cite_news#Subscription_or_registration_required, I don't think this scenario falls into either, as you can see from the comments, the Singapore library only allows readers to be physically present at the library to view the microfilms. For the purpose of indication, neither "registration" or "subscription", as the restrictions maybe removed upon paying a fee or something like that... Mr Tan (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Where no appropriate template exists, you have to make up your own note. I would simply add "(Restricted access)" to the source - the nature of the restriction is given on the source page, so a brief note should be sufficient. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Done Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC) A number of the citations show authors' names in capitals. This is contrary to MOS formats and the capitalisations should be removed even though, in some of the cases, the names are capitalised in the source. See refs 117, 121, 122, 132 and many more. Oh, I took the shortcut and "copy and pasted" the authors names from The Cambodia Daily w/o bothering to change them. Will fix them over the next few days...apologies lol Mr Tan (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) All fixed Mr Tan (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC) In the bibliography it is not necessary to include countries in publisher locations; thus, "New York" will do, rather than "New York, United States of America". Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Also, "Great Britain (United Kingdom)" doesn't make sense. Routledge's headquarters are in London. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) The Mehta entry in the bibliography appears to duplicate the book's title. Harish Mehta (the same author) wrote two books, "Strongman ---" and "Warrior Prince---", but they are published in different years, in 2013 and 2001. As for the citations, I believe that "Mehta (2001), p. 69" vs "Mehta (2013), p. 69" should be sufficient distinctive, given the years? Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I don't think I made my query clear. I was referring to this line in the bibliography: "Mehta, Harish C. & Julie B. (2013). Strongman: The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen: The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd", which duplicates the words "The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen". Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Done Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "National University of Singapore" is part of the publisher description. it is not the publisher's location. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Subject to the above issues, I believe that all sources used in the article are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

All addressed Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

General comments: Tracing the serpentine, convoluted life and career of Ranariddh within the unfamiliar world of Cambodian politics is a difficult undertaking, and Mr Tan has done well in attempting it in less than 7,000 words. I have carried out some fairly extensive copyedits to polish the prose, and am left with a number of queries:

Extended content

Can you clarify the difference between the Supreme National Council of Cambodia (SNC), and United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)? The SNC is something like the official face of an interim government Cambodia, while (technically) it "delegates" the responsibility of day-to-day governance of Cambodia to UNTAC. This is how I understand it. You may wish to refer to Widyono's source at [58], "The Supreme National Council (SNC) was established to serve as the "unique legitimate body and source of authority" in Cambodia throughout the transition period. ... The Paris Peace Agreements therefore stipulated that the SNC delegate all powers to UNTAC to implement the agreements." Another source, as described by Sebastian Strangio (Hun Sen's Cambodia), describes the relationship between the SNC and UNTAC as this: "The Paris Agreements created the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), which would take temporary control over the Cambodian state. Sovereignty would be temporarily vested in a 13-member Supreme National Council (SNC) consisting of del- egates from each of the four factions, with Prince Sihanouk serving as the body's sup- posedly “neutral” president." - Page 43 As there are at least two seperate, but very closely related bodies were created to govern Cambodia during this period of time, I know it can sound pretty confusing. But again, as this article is about Ranariddh's life, I thought of trying to explain the function of SNC / UNTAC in one sentence at most, and any additional elaboration should be the responsibility of the component articles, in my opinion. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) I am not suggesting a detailed explanation, merely a brief note inserted perhaps thus: "When the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) – a parallel administrative body with the STC – was formed in February 1992..." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "According to Canadian geographer Philippe Le Billon, Ranariddh and Hun Sen were tacitly supportive of continued Khmer Rouge logging activities as it provided a lucrative source of revenue[22] to finance their own political activities". It is not clear from this how revenue raised by the Khmer Rouge's logging activities reached Ranariddh and Hun Sen. I can't provide the exact quote at the moment from the source for this, as I have returned the book to the library and I can only do so after around 11 January the earliest. But my impression is that the logging activities does provide profits. However, these profits did not go to the soverign coffers, but rather through backdoor (corrupt means) which was used to fund Ranariddh's political activities (for FUNCINPEC) and that of Hun Sen (CPP). Nevertheless, I did an online search on this, and there were other similar sources that gave very similar explanations. I can recommend you to read this source: [59], pp. 212-3, with the quote: " Likewise, given the power struggle within the Cambodian government between FUNCINPEC and the CPP, other foreign companies (particularly Malaysian Samling Corporation Sdn Bhd) were also able to benefit from logging concessions awarded by the Cambodian prime ministers (without consultation with the National Assembly),20 as both factions were competing to strengthen their power bases through income generated from the timber industry." I hope this sufficiently clarifies, though I can go back to look for the exact quote from the original source if you feel that it's necessary... Mr Tan (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You could say: "it provided a lucrative backdoor source of revenue", which would I think be sufficient clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "A few days later, apparently to tone down dissatisfaction from party members, Ranariddh publicly accused the Vietnamese army of encroaching into the territories of four Cambodian provinces bordering Vietnam. As Widyono and the Khmer Rouge saw it, Ranariddh intended to test Hun Sen's response to his accusations, of which the latter chose to remain quiet." I found it impossible to work out what was going on here, and was particularly confused by "As Widyono and the Khmer Rouge saw it" When I was reading the page from Widyono's source at [60], Widyono (the book author) did state that "ironically, cladestine Khmer Rouge radio, the most vehement anti-yuon (Vietnamese) element, maintained that Ranariddh was clowning around." This was the position taken by the KR. But at the same time, Widyono did go on to input his own analysis by stating, "Actually, Ranariddh anti-Vietnam rhetoric was mainly meant for domestic consumption...." - I think to make things less confusing I shall remove the KR here. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) "In addition to Khmer Rouge-controlled areas, substantial logging also occurred in the remote northeastern province of Rattanakiri, predominantly populated by indigenous ethnic minorities collectively known as the Khmer Loeu." – how is this information relevant to Ranariddh? Agreed. I"ll remove this. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) "He declared that he was prepared to quarrel with Ranariddh over his public criticisms of Ing Kieth, while also chiding Ranariddh for not following through on his March threat to leave the coalition government, and calling him a "real dog". I found this comment muddled and unhelpful, and suggest it is dropped I think it's the issue of Hun Sen's move to establish diplomatic relations with S. Korea. I have replaced it with a continuation of Sihanouk's 27 April declaration to make the prose cause-and-effect link more apparent. As for the Ing Kieth part of the text, I think it's fine, as for the "March threat", I'm referring to Ranariddh's outburst on 22 March 1996. Hopefully it flows better now. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You haven't actually changed the wording of the sentence to which I took exception. Whatever its intention, in my view it is an awkward and meaningless interjection and the article would be a lot better without it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I think the Ing Kieth part of the sentence is the jarring part of the prose which compromises readability. I have removed that, and restructured the paragraph. However, I feel that the "real dog" criticism should stay, as it shows Hun Sen's verbal salvo in response to Ranariddh's March outburst, which marked a crucial turning point in their relations. Mr Tan (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC) I have significantly redrafted the final paragraph of the "Conflict escalation" section, as I couldn't make sense of it as it stood. I hope that what I have written is in accordance with what happened. Looks Ok so far. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC) In the section "Expulsion from FUNCINPEC", there is no mention of Ranariddh's "expulsion", only of his deposition as party president and appointment to the titular position of "Historic President". That does not sound like expulsion. I"ll change it to "Exit" then. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You still have "Following Ranariddh's expulsion..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon from Sihamoni for his embezzlement conviction..." As you haven't mentioned Sihamoni's accession since the lead, and don't deal with this matter until later in the article, I suggest you ad a note along the lines: "...from Sihamoni (who had succeeded to the throne in October 2004)..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC) The image of Sinahouk's 2013 funeral is not in the right location chronologically. I can place this in the paragraph starting with "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon...", but it will cause the text to break and become jaggered because there is the second image of Ranariddh in 2014. This is why I prefer to put images at the start of each section, for stylistics and symmetry. But if you feel it's really inappropriate, I'm fine with removing that 2013 image altogether as well. Mr Tan (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Three million riels sounds a lot, but I think it equates to about US$750. Some dollar equivalence, and the basis of conversion, would be useful. I just checked the exchange rate online, it stands at US$737. I had initially held back against adding the exchange rate, as you know that currencies maybe prone to fluctuation - the exchange rate today may not be the same as the next 2 years, and vice versa. But since you have pointed out, I have put it up. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You need to cite a source for the conversion. Also, you can say "USD750", or "US$750" (I prefer the latter) but not USD$750. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Added http://www.nbc.org.kh/english/economic_research/exchange_rate.php for reference Mr Tan (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Four of Ranariddh's half-siblings by his mother and Chap Huot were killed during the years..." – during which years? Added the KR. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) When the above matters are resolved I will be minded to support the article's promotion. I note that as a result of my efforts at peer review and in more recent copyediting, I am the article's second heaviest contributor by no. of edits – although my total of 59 is dwarfed by Mr Tan's 682 and I have added no significant content, so I don't feel disqualified from giving a declaration. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC) I have addressed all comments stated above (save for perhaps half a point), hopefully satisfactorily. Still, nothing is set in stone, and my door is always open in looking into any further concerns which may otherwise continue to hinder this article's FA worthiness. (To Brianboulton/Wehwalt, thank you for your efforts and inputs. :)) Happy New Year to all! (Y) Mr Tan (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC) OK, and all good wishes to you, too – but it is premature to collapse the section while we are still in dialogue over issues, so I have reopened it for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) And of course to all, and to you. I am watching and getting ready for a second run through as soon as Brian and Mr Tan are in agreement.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC) All replies addressed and looked into so far. Mr Tan (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Support an excellent work, now I think ready for the star. Thank you for your patience, Mr Tan, and congratulations on a fine work indeed. We look forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: I think Mr Tan has moved sufficiently close to meeting my concerns for me to declare support for the article's promotion. For those used to western political systems the article is not always easy to follow, but it is better than most in explaining recent Cambodian history, and provides an informative who's who to characters whose names only infrequently crop up in western media. Congratulations to Mr Tan for his perseverence in bringing the article to its present standard. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wugapodes

Disclosure: I was the GA reviewer for this article in September Support: I am impressed by the work done since I saw this at GAN. As someone unfamiliar with Cambodian politics, I found this article very accessible and the writing compelling. I don't know enough about the topic to speak to its comprehensiveness, but I can say I was not left wanting. My only two concerns are rather minor.

• First is, as I brought up in the GA review, MOS:PERCENT recommends writing out the word "percent" which isn't done.
• The second is the references section. It mixes shortened footnotes with full citations which I find unsightly, but I'm not sure of a better way to do it.

I have gone ahead and fixed the first, and would be willing to discuss the second as I realize I mostly gave a problem not a solution. Regardless, others seem to not have a problem with it, and it's rather minor, so I still support. Thanks for the great work, and good luck with the nomination! Wugapodes (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with the footnotes issue – the long/short footnotes problem; as far as possible, I would ideally love to standardise them all. While shortened footnotes are possible with books (See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Web_pages), as the full name of each book source can be relegated to the "Bibliography" section, I do not see how this is possible when news or web sources are used. I personally prefer book sources, but this is not always possible as some information may only be found in news/online sources.... Mr Tan (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Notes

• Looks to me that we haven't had an image review here.
• Also it seems to have been a long time between drinks for you at FAC, Mr Tan, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC unless one or two of the existing reviewers would like to do the honours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have submitted the request as you have suggested. (PS: Brianboulton did a source review as shown above, is that still insufficient?) Mr Tan (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the source review above takes care of formatting and reliability, the spotcheck for accuracy etc is another thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Migration of the Serbs

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: previous FAC before name change Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Migration of Serbs/archive1 Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since the article was failed due to lack of reviews and I figured I'd give it a second shot. It is about a 19th-century Serbian oil painting by Paja Jovanović. I've addressed all the concerns that were raised at the previous FAC and hope a sufficient number of reviewers will come round to taking a look at it this time round. 23 editor (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – There's a touch of WP:OVERLINK (Budapest, Belgrade, The Bible, United States, New York) and although false titles are generally, and most commendably, avoided, there's one for "Author Tim Judah" and another for "Historian Katarina Todić" (who, by the way, must surely opine that "there are" rather than "their are"). Nothing of any great moment there, and though I am anything but expert on the visual arts I am happy to support the FA candidacy; as far as I can judge the criteria are met. – Tim riley talk 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. Your comments have been addressed. 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – Most of what I might have commented on (as in a recent GA on another painting) has been improved in the last few days, making this a worthy nomination. I think "naturalistic" is meant rather than "naturalist", and one or two wikilinks on such styles of painting and a few terms like ethnography might be in order, but in truth this is a highly-polished article that would already look fine on the front page. I've added the category History paintings: perhaps this term might be linked in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, Chap. I have addressed your comments as well. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – definitely worthy of FA status. Nice work!--Zoupan 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Zoupan! 23 editor (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Support One might hope for a more sophisticated analysis of the style than Filipovitch-Robinson seems to offer, but there may well not be one. Otherwise my points last time have been dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John. 23 editor (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: an interesting and well written article about a beautiful paiting. I think, the following modifications are necessary before its promotion:

• First sentence under the subtitle "Commissioning": "In the early 1890s, Hungarian officials announced plans for a Budapest Millennium Exhibition to be held in 1896; it was to mark the 1,000th anniversary of the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, reaffirm Hungary's "national and territorial legitimacy" and the Hungarian people's "natural and historical right in the areas they inhabited."" (The Kingdom of Hungary was established in 1000, and Hungary celebrated the 1,000 anniversary of the Hungarian Conquest in 1896).
• Fourth sentence in the lead: "Measuring 580 by 380 centimetres (230 by 150 in), the first painting was completed in 1896, and presented to Patriarch Georgije later that year." Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

All done, Borsoka! Here are the changes . Thanks for taking interest in the article. If there's anything else to improve, feel free to bring it up. 23 editor (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Support, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Ian. I was hoping Nikkimaria would take a look at the image licensing. 23 editor (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods; those that are, should
• File:Serbmigra.jpg has two slightly different copyright tags - the second appears correct
• File:Migration_of_the_Serbs.jpg: the given licensing would mean that the work is non-free in the US, absent another tag. But is there a reason why this tag would not apply to the above image as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Walter Whitehead

Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a surgeon and President of the British Medical Association who invented a new surgical procedure when he turned up for work with a hangover. I've done extensive research of both secondary and primary sources and feel confident that there isn't anything of significance omitted that would be acceptable under our various policies and guidelines. The prose might need some tightening up but my regular GA/FA copyeditor is no longer with us, sorry. I've not bothered with the GA stepping-stone: excuse my arrogance but I feel this article is at worst very close to FA standard. I'm hoping that others feel the same. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Walter_Whitehead.png needs a US PD tag

Also, a general comment on references: rather than repeating the publication title in place of the author for unattributed news articles, I suggest omitting it and sorting by article title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I will sort out the US PD tag. While I think aesthetics are inherently subjective, I'm not actually aware of how to usefully implement {{sfnp}} using article titles, especially given the length of some of those titles. I think somewhere - William Beach Thomas, perhaps - I used "Anon" for the author name but when there are so many newspaper articles listed that is just going to make things even more difficult for the reader. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a sample of how this can be done without changing the inline citations at all - just add the harvid you're already using to the references. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, thank you. I've often wondered about the harvid thing. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, I'm not at all well and have not got round to this yet. I will do. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: I have just converted the "B"s per your suggestion. I'm going to think about this: while the things would appear to work ok in a linked environment, it seems very clumsy should someone print the thing - they would be struggling to find the correct citation, especially if the list is re-jigged to restore the alphabetised order. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• You could also use a shortened form of the title for the inline citation - that would just take a bit more immediate work in coding and organizing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, with a fair amount of fudging, but it still seems somehow "unnatural" to me. I expect citations to begin with the name of the author and, yes, it is probably pretty rare to have so many anonymous citations in a WP article. Is it a situation that is more common than I realise? Is there anything inherently wrong with repeating the publication title, rather than merely some aesthetic issue? Does anyone else have thoughts regarding this? - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Commenting per request on my talk page. In my FAs on films, I have often had to cite anonymous works. The Harv set-up works best if you use it from the beginning. Personally, I agree that repeating the publication title is not particularly attractive, but it has been done. Usually, however, I see it as "X staff writer" or the like. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• It was me who asked, and I did ping Nikkimaria at the time because I'm wary of canvassing but aware that Crisco, like NM, has considerable experience of FAC. Thanks for the response, Crisco 1492. Could you perhaps link me to a couple of examples of relevant film FAs? I'm not averse to changing the cites, just cautious that this is primarily an aesthetic issue and that it might impact in non-hypertext situations. Maybe I need to get with the modern world, where everything is hypertext! - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• FAs not using writer fields where no writer is indicated include Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI and Sorga Ka Toedjoe. I can't think of any FAs using X staff writer off the top of my head. I think I usually saw that in User:Tim riley or User:SchroCat's FACs, but I may be mistaken. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• (To be clear, I have no objection to you seeking a second opinion). There's also Oliver Bosbyshell using the publication-title method, and Lawrence Wetherby using (unlinked) article-title. I don't immediately have a linked article-title example to hand, though I can keep looking. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Hitler Diaries, Great Stink etc are mine with no writer—they start with the article title; I don't see it as a problem, and the aesthetic isn't one that's struck me before. I know Tim Riley adds the words "staff writer", but that's in hidden text inside the article (certainly on the articles we've worked together on). Hope this helps! – SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to all of you. I'm going to take a look at those examples now and then I'm going to change the format here per your suggestions. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Citations are now in the style used at, for example, Hitler Diaries. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this has sat here a fair while. Here's a review

• Lead strikes me as overly verbose. The article is relatively short; I don't see why the lead should take up nearly 15% of its length.
• Third paragraph of the lead: too many sentences starting with the pronoun "he" or a variant
• Both agree that he met with medical students in Manchester while attending chemistry lectures intended to give him more knowledge of the workings of the family business; later, he also met with them while attending the market in Manchester on behalf of the business. - Also looks like it could bear some massaging. A bit verbose.
• Drs. Harris and Bennett - first names?
• , when his address was given as 16 Union Square, Bury = is this necessary?
• LM and LFPS - Care to gloss these?
• Having all of his titles in caps strikes me as odd. "Honorary Assistant Surgeon", for instance, is used here as a general noun; we would say "a president" but "the President of the United States", not "a President". "an Honorary Consulting Surgeon" is particularly problematic for me.
• new Skin Hospital - Same issue: is this the proper name of the institution, or the general type of institution? The capitalization suggests the former.
• Whitehead's Varnish - What's with the italics?
• I don't see how the famous patients fits with the rest of that section.
• for the endowment - Repeated twice in close succession.
• Overall, the prose strikes me as being very "list-y", especially when you discuss his numerous appointments. I'm not sure this meets the prose criterion. Also, the thematic organization doesn't strike me as having been pulled off well; the article feels disjointed in places. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Black American Sign Language

Nominator: Wugapodes (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a dialect of American Sign Language (ASL) spoken by the Black Deaf in the American South that arose out of the segregation of schools for the deaf prior to Brown v. Board. It covers the sociocultural history that led to the language split as well as the features that distinguish it from other dialects of ASL. Research into the dialect has only been going on intensively for the last two decades and the article incorporates the most comprehensive studies of the dialect as well as a number of small scale studies. Wugapodes (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• Hi Wug. (I'm proud to say, I got the joke in the name, right down to "octopodes".) Reading through now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• "the first school exclusively for the Black deaf—The School for the Colored Deaf, Dumb, and Blind": It doesn't sound like the school was exclusively for the Black deaf; was it?
• I'm occasionally removing repetition of words when there's a way around repeating them. My crude understanding is that psycholinguists approve of this kind of copyediting; see for instance The Sense of Style (and I'll be happy to hunt up a page number). You can always revert, and then it's up to the FAC coords to decide if it makes a difference to them. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• "The use of repetition by BASL signers is considered to be pragmatic rather than clarifying as most instances were of declarative statements and, cross-linguistically, pragmatic repetition in statements is common.": I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.
• "A study in 2004 by Melanie Metzger and Susan Mather found that Black male signers used constructed action, with or without constructed dialogue, more often than White signers, but never used constructed dialogue by itself.": At a minimum, those links will need to turn blue for readers to know what you mean.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Glad you brought this to FAC. It's a fascinating subject, and I'd like to see it on the Main Page one day. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback and especially the copyedit. The article's better for it. I rechecked the source about the Skinner school and revised the sentence accordingly, I tried to clarify the sentence on pragmatic repetition as best I could, and I plan to create an article (or two) on constructed action and dialogue, I just need to find more sources. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Your changes look good. Welcome aboard. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment That it is a dialect (rather than, say, a style) should be referenced (and the word linked), and perhaps discussed further. Not all the sources seem to describe it so. There are no specific examples of differences mentioned, which one would certainly expect in an FA on a dialect. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment! I do agree that specific examples of signs that vary should be included and will add them in this weekend. I sourced the sentence in the History section that claims it is a dialect to Ethnologue. I did not include a discussion on the terminology as it has very little to do with the language variety itself, and there is no controversy regarding the terminology to discuss rather just an evolution in the terminology and scholarship. To give a brief overview, early work referred to it as a language variety (which encompasses styles, accents, and dialects) because there was very little data on it. Then McCaskill, et al. put forth a lot of data in the first comprehensive study of the variety in 2011. In 2012 Clint Brockway, adjunct faculty at UA Little Rock, put forth an argument in favor of calling it a dialect based upon the available data, particularly in McCaskill, et all. 2011 (this isn't to say Brockway's essay was very influential in the field--it wasn't--rather, it shows what those paying attention to the data were thinking and the arguments in support of it). And in the most recent version of Ethnologue (2015), BASL is refered to as a dialect showing there is at least some agreement in the field that it can be considered a dialect. This is how language typology typically works and isn't worth discussing as the discussion would simply be "We didn't have data, then we had data, then we called it that because we now have data" which has almost nothing to do with the dialect itself, but rather the academics surrounding it. Wugapodes (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't agree with that. You should cover this in the article. At the moment, that it is a dialect at all is unreferenced, though you keep saying it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you saying that it's unreferenced? This edit added a citation to Ethnologue. Ethnologue has a section entitled "dialects" the first dialect listed is "Black American Sign Language". Even the Dictionary of American Sign Language in 1965 put the variety spoken by African Americans under the heading "Dialects". If you would like a particular line referenced, you need to be more clear than just stating it's unreferenced.

If you add a reference after a comment saying there is no reference, you need to say here you have done so. Don't expect reviewers to to follow every edit to an article between visits; there are often very many of these and they won't be doing that. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I did. Third sentence of my first reply to you: "I sourced the sentence in the History section that claims it is a dialect to Ethnologue." Wugapodes (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot include a discussion of whether to call it a variety or dialect because there are no sources about it. There's no conflict between the two terms, and no conflict within the field as to which term to use. "Variety" seems to be used in primary sources (McCaskill 2011, Lucas 2015, etc) while "dialect" in secondary (Stokoe 1965, Ethnologue 2015, Brockway 2012, etc). Brockway seems to be the only person to do a literature review and argue for "dialect", but while no one has rebutted him, his essay isn't the same quality of source as the others in the article possibly being self-published.

The choice between the two terms seems largely dependent on the author. I chose "dialect" because it is used more frequently in secondary sources like The Dictionary of American Sign Language, Ethnologue, Brockway, All Things Linguistic, etc which are independent of the subject. It's the term people not working on the language call it upon looking at the primary literature. McCaskill, Lucas, and others researching the dialect are not as independent of the subject matter. So I chose the term used in the most recent secondary sources rather than primary sources.

If you would like to discuss whether that decision is justified or not, I would be glad to do so, but there is no discussion in the literature to put in this article, and I can't create it from my own analysis of sources. Having laid out my reasoning twice, if you would like me to take a particular course of action, I need something more substantial than "can't agree". Wugapodes (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If "The choice between the two terms seems largely dependent on the author", maybe you should say something along these lines, rather than silently selecting a single term. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no source that says that. We don't need a footnote every time an editor uses editorial discretion. If we did most of our articles would be footnotes or discussions on why certain words were chosen over others. Because "language variety" and "dialect" are not contradictory but synonymous, because the claim that BASL is a dialect is reliably sourced to multiple independent sources, and because there is not consensus for the change (considering none of your arguments have convinced me the change is good or necessary), I will not be making the edit you suggest. If any of those things change (particularly consensus), I will reconsider. Wugapodes (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by delldot

resolved comments from delldot ∇.

An interesting read! Lots of comments, mostly just minor wording tweaks: Per WP:DATED, would it be better to change "legally desegregated for 60 years" to "legally desegregated since the 1950s"? Done. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This is very minor and picky, but is there a less wordy way to say "segregation created two speech communities that led to ASL diverging into two dialects"? Could it say "caused ASL to diverge into" without changing the meaning? Also, was there only one dialect prior to this? I chose that wording because it's rather precise. The two communities helped the divergence but I'm wary of a causal relationship. Speech communities are formed all the time and don't lead to new dialects, and besides that the sources don't support a causal relationship. It's probably impossible to say how many dialects there were then, but there was likely only one in the community I was referring to in the sentence. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Repetitive sentence: "The first school for the deaf, The American School for the Deaf (ASD), was founded in 1817 but did not admit any Black deaf students until 1952." Could you take out one or two instances of 'deaf' and retain clarity? Done. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I would split this long sentence into two: "Seeing a lack of educational opportunities for the Black deaf, Dr. Platt Skinner founded the first school to accept the Black deaf—The School for the Colored Deaf, Dumb, and Blind—in 1856 in Niagara Falls, New York, saying: '[it] is the first effort of its kind in the country ... We receive and instruct those and only those who are refused admission to all other institutions and are despised on account of their color."" Also there's the repetition of the word 'deaf' again. Done. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I think use of 'as' to mean 'since' is discouraged, because it makes the meaning more ambiguous. e.g. "integration was sparse as some institutions allowed Black students"; "As the education of White children was privileged"; "as Oralist methods often forbade usage of sign language"; "as younger signers would have more contact with AAE". Done? I suggest you take a look at this one. My ability to distinguish between 'since' and 'as' is terrible unfortunately and I'm not sure how well I managed. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Took a crack at a couple of them, see what you think. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) In this sentence, is there a reason for 'usage' instead of 'use'? My understanding is it's best to use the more common word (e.g. choose 'while' over 'whilst'). "Oralist methods often forbade usage of sign language". Nope, I just felt like it at the time. I agree with you so I will change it. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Might it work better for flow to move the last sentence in the third para (beginning "Despite the decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954") to before the one in the same para beginning "Black Deaf children thus became a language community isolated from the White Deaf"? I see why you did it that way, but my way you have '1. info about school segregation, 2. the effects on Black Deaf signers, 3. examples of the effects after integration.' I see your point, though the reason I have it there is chronological. The schools were segregated, speech communities formed, dialects diverged, schools were integrated. I felt like chronology was that better way to organize the history section. I do agree that yours works thematically, and may be better. I'm unsure of what I prefer at the moment. What are your thoughts? Do you think a chronological or thematic organization is better in this instance? Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Either is fine actually, I don't know why I got worried over this one sentence. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) is the first para in the History section necessary? The lead has the info, and it's repeated a couple paras down. Seems like unnecessary repetition. Done. I merged the opening line in with the next paragraph and deleted the repetitive sentence on speech communities from it. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I needed an explanation of 'phonology', so I followed the link and got "Phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of sounds in languages." Maybe a sentence or parenthetical to explain what phonology means here? I changed the target from Phonology to American Sign Language phonology which is probably better. Your thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Cool. I'm in the camp of define everything in your article so people don't have to stop reading yours to go to the linked article. But I know others are fine with it this way. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Last sentence: "Other loans words modified existing signs..." Should it be "loan words"? "loaned words"? It was a typo. Fixed. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Small list of references, which means a heavy dependence on a few resources. Is there not much else written on the subject? I did a quick search and found this chapter, was there nothing usable in it? That chapter is largely a summary of McCaskill, et al. (2011) which is the main source for this article. McCaskill is the first and currently only systematic study of the dialect unfortunately. There are remarkably few reliable sources that are independent of its findings, and so I chose to cite it many times rather than cite other books that just reiterate its claims. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Fair enough. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Questions I still have after reading this article: How many dialects of ASL are there? How similar is BASL to the others? What percentage of overlap in words is there? The last sentence in History says "Carl Croneberg was the first to discuss differences...", maybe this para could expand more on what some of the differences are? P. 41 in this book mentions some numbers from one study about differences in signs. (Ooh, also answers my above question about phonology!) I'm from natural sciences--give me numbers! These are hard questions to answer. Your first is part of an open question in linguistics as a whole. Depending on how you count, there can be tens to hundreds of dialects of ASL (see Varieties of American Sign Language which only lists national varieties derived from ASL) as dividing between accent, dialect, and language is more of a heuristic than a strict science (see the Linguistic Society of America's page on how many langauges are there to see how counting languages is still problematic). Numbers are also hard to come by as I don't think they've been produced. Your last two questions refer to lexicostatistics which would be a valuable addition if they existed for this dialect. I can try and expand on Croneberg's contribution, though it wasn't strictly related to BASL (it was about the sociology of the Deaf community as a whole and just touched on the issue). The book you linked is a good one (notably by two authors of McCaskill, et al. 2011). Though I tried to stay away from including numbers too often. I realize there is a lack of numbers in the lexical variation section so I will fix that. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Cool. I like the addition of the numbers. I guess my confusion is that the whole article talks about BASL vs. ASL, as if ASL was this monolithic thing. (e.g. the signing space image). Is there one standard ASL with a bunch of deviations, or is any ASL speaker you talk to going to be speaking southern, western, midwestern, or whatever? And is BASL much more different than any of these, or would speakers of any two dialects have the trouble understanding each other that McCaskill described with her teacher? I don't know if the information exists to add to the article but anything you could do to clarify that I think would be helpful. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) The short answer is, there isn't much data on those questions (though I would love those answers too!). But I think I could clarify better and will try to do so. The long answer (based on a lot of synthesis of sources) is that research on ASL in general is comparatively limited in linguistics. There's a lot of regional variation in ASL on the level of accents, and a lot of work on it, but not a lot on the sociolinguistics of it (work on that has only flourished in the last couple decades). Add to that the limitations of the work on BASL—research has really only been done in the South, has focused more on identifying the dialect than in depth descriptive work—and there's just not a lot of large-scale comparative work. However, I think part of the problem is I'm assuming a lot of background knowledge and can probably clarify a bit more. I worried about turning the article into a sociolinguistics text book, but may have swung too far in the other direction. To answer your first question, there is a "standard" ASL in the same way there is a "standard" English with prescriptive rules, but it is different from the actual spoken varieties. In fact, no one actually natively speaks "Standard American English" (or Standard ASL for that matter). Standard languages are a product of language ideology and in (socio)linguistics are used as a kind of null hypothesis. Basically, there's this idealized standard that you compare dialects to. The confusing part is that prestige dialects often co-opt the name of the language, like how Mandarin Chinese is considered "Chinese" despite just being one dialect of the whole of Chinese dialects, or Midwestern American English considered "accentless" despite being an accent itself. There's a reason we joke that a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy. Anyway, I'll get to trying to clarify or add a section explaining those things Wugapodes (talk) Yeah, that's helpful, I'm eager to see what you add. I don't want to get you in trouble with others for going outside the scope of this article, but if you stick to summarizing you should be ok. delldot ∇. 00:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Okay, I made this edit which added a bit on standardization and prestige dialects (and gave links to them). I also related it to perceptions of BASL itself (though there isn't much information on that). Sorry it took me so long, I needed to find a few more sources on tangential topics. I hope the added material is helpful. Are there any other recommendations you have for the article? Wugapodes (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Nice! I think the para could use a bit of copy editing for awkward wording ("there are still regional accents of ASL similar to spoken languages", "considered bad", "different groups of people".) But I think the content is great. I noticed in the lead commented out is the fact that "the two dialects are mutually intelligible", which I think is a really important point that should be included. Well, at least now it's implied, but it's contradicted by the quote from McCaskill. delldot ∇. 07:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I forgot about that comment. I have included it. McCaskill's quote doesn't really contradict it though. She recounts when the schools were first integrated and the dialects first came into contact, while the study on code-switching is from about 30 years after in the 1990s allowing some time to increase familiarity and some convergence. Plus mutual intelligibility can still cause misunderstandings. Scots and American English are mutually intelligible, but if I'm talking with a Scots speaker, I'm going to be rather confused. Wugapodes (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC) The image Typical ASL Signing Space representation.svg doesn't have a corresponding box for BASL. The caption just says "outside of this area"--kind of vague. I'd be happy to alter that image in inkscape if I knew how big to make the box. Then you could have them side by side for comparison. The reason the image looks as it does (I created it) is because only the ASL signing space is well defined. For BASL, the signing space is only referenced as larger, I could not find a concrete description of how much larger it is. So I display the typical signing space and say that BASL allows signs outside of it because that's all I really know from the sources. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) It's a short article, and I'm wondering if it's really comprehensive. e.g. The Oxford Handbook of African American Language that I linked to above mentions prosity and rate differences in BASL and ASL. It also mentions some implications for the future, maybe the article could include some of these. To be quite honest with you, my biggest concern was comprehensiveness. There is a lot we do not know about BASL; the first systematic study on it was only finished 5 years ago. However, I believe the article is comprehensive. While there is only so much information available on BASL, the best information in the field is included in the article (and as more becomes available, more will be included). To address your point, the chapter touches on prosody and speech rate (which itself is a problematic metric, but you're not here for a linguistic methods course so I'll let it be), but there isn't any real information on it. Hill, et al. simply state they noticed some differences in head and torso movement as well as speech rate but don't explain or offer any analysis. I am hesitant to include it because it's a rather weak claim compared to the other information and I believe would be undue.Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Fair enough. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Not bad so far though! delldot ∇. 08:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you so much for your comments, delldot! I've been busy the last few days, and I'm really sorry that I'm just noticing this. I'm unfortunately going to sleep at the moment, but I will address all of these first thing in the morning (probably around 1900 UTC). Wugapodes (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I have addressed your points. Sorry if I'm long winded, but you gave me a lot to think about. Only a few of my responses need your attention, and feel free to ask more questions or disagree with me if you think things still should be changed. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) No, your responses were great. The only thing I didn't strike was the question of how different BASL is from other dialects of ASL (i.e. are all dialects of ASL that are spoken by mostly non-Black signers more similar to each other than to BASL, or is BASL just one among many different dialects, not more divergent than some other types?). I don't know if it's possible to fully answer the question given the paucity of study, but I'm eager to see what you do with it. Thanks for all the work you've put in! delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything's dealt with now. I hope you'll keep adding info as further studies become available, as we discussed. But it looks like this is comprehensive for what exists. Great work! support. delldot ∇. 21:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Belgium national football team

Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the national association football (or soccer) team of Belgium, more specifically the senior men's team. I believe it should be featured because of the broad scope and the high care given to sourcing, prose and illustrations. Comments of independent editors were "[g]ood work", "quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this" and "excellent, thorough and widely comprehensive". After it obtained GA status, a double peer review and copy editing by members of the GOCE (among others) lead to further prose improvement. Kareldorado (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Already of high quality during PR, it only got better since. Congratulations, Kareldorado. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support (note personal involvement: I nominated the article for DYK after it became GA, I am not involved with the content) - Good overview of the topic, supported by sufficient decent references. Reads well, neutral wording, no recent changes. It has been checked by enough editors, and has sufficient maintenance by the author, that I feel comfortable to support this article for featured article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comments taking a look now. Queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Need to link to Brazil and West Germany national teams at first mention in body of text.

Good point, I just fixed it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Through the History section, a sprinkling of notes on key players at various periods would be good. I'd incorporate the notable players section into the chronology.

That was also what I had done before. However, this greatly expands the History section and I think it gives the reader less appetite to keep reading through it. On the reverse, it is a lot easier to find things about the team as a whole, and about notable players if you have these sections apart. Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok more of a style thing and not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a traditional predominance of either french or flemish speaking players?

Irrelevant IMO, but probably a Flemish speaking majority most often since most (roughly 60%) Belgians live in Flanders. In the 1980s and 1990s most well-known players were Flemish speaking, except for Michel Preud'homme, Philippe Albert and Enzo Scifo. Note that some notable players have been from Brussels and accordingly are pretty much bilangual (Van Himst, Kompany, Lukaku). Kareldorado (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose issues outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have significant issues over WP:RECENTISM in the History section, a common issue in such articles. To illustrate my point: you've squeezed 60 years of history into one paragraph, followed by 35 years over 3 paragraphs, which is a sixfold increase in space allocated per year. I do understand that those were underachieving years, but nonetheless... --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Very good remark in order to shift the article towards more balance, Dweller. I want to stress that originally the 1920-1979 period took three paragraphs and it was stuffed with multiple sentences on notable players. However, the situation is what it is, and to compensate for it I think it would be good that I would (among others) add another sentence illustrating the "world champion of the friendlies" nickname in the 1970s, and further squeeze the 2002-2012 underachievement years. Do you have suggestions for other interesting things to mention for the 1920-1979 period? Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I already made it more equilibrated now, but feel free to give additional comments or to carry on materials that you might find relevant for the 1920-1979 era. Kareldorado (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Much better now, thanks. I've not reviewed thoroughly enough to support, but I have no issues with the nomination. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Support: The article is excellent, but, to further improve it for FA quality, I encourage Karel to turn the tables and look at the article from the perspective of the reader. And not just any reader, but one that is not necessarily a football fan. This is a strategy that I follow in the articles that I write because, at the end of the day, I am more interested in knowing people were not bogged down by excessive information and stats.

I couldn't agree more, and therefore I hope this review also attracts 'less interested' people, in the sense that they are not specifically interested in football or sports. Other people can provide fresh views, however, I feel lucky that editors like you can also still provide new insights. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • History

    The nickname "Red Devils" is presented here and in the kit section. I would recommend for the information in the history to be integrated with the one in the kit section (as it would be easier to find this in that section than in the history).

I opted for moving over this part into the "Mascot and logo"-sect as the nickname served 3 of 4 times as inspiration for the logo; since every mascot was also a logo I made it "Nickname and logo". Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • History

    Is it really necessary to mention the low-countries derby in the history? I don't think there's a need to repeat information.

True, it is already clearly mentioned in the lead and the rivalries section (where it is stated that these were cup matches) - dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • History

    Why is it important for the reader to know that three Belgian players died in the First World War?

This is not necessarily a rhetorical question; note that there have been other events in which multiple sportsmen died that were considered noteworthy (see Munich air disaster and Munich massacre). If many more - say, 10 - national team members had died, it probably would have been more notable. Since it seems very likely that similar numbers of casualties due to wars happened to other sports teams as well, I must agree that this sentence was probably not that important, so I dropped it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • History

    Ideally, match scores should be placed only if truly necessary (and, I would argue that there is no real necessity for it in the history section; notable results should be present in the records sections). I think removing them and smoothing out the narrative would improve the prose (and flow of the reading).

Ok, I dropped them... what's your opinion on the "Competitive record" sections - would you leave out most scores there as well? Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • History

    Why is it important to highlight that Brazil's Pele confirmed something about Belgium? I think the source is good enough.

Not that important, I simply wanted to show that this mock title was not just an inside joke of Belgians, but that it was also used elsewhere. I dropped the sentence part now and kept the source. Kareldorado (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • History

    Overall, the section's best paragraphs are those where you narrate the story. The not-as-good are those where you rely more on the results. This is nothing to specifically address, but wanted to point it out just as a general thought.

True, but the painful thing is that sometimes there is simply not an exciting story to be told instead... so then I am stuck with mentioning results. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Structure

    Team image should not be the last section. Think of it like a sports book or magazine. It is usually at the end where the stats and records are located (and these should, therefore, be the last sections). Where to place it? Probably somewhere before the players section. I'd recommend before or after rivalries.

Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Team image

    The actions section would be better if it was not listed with bullet points. Can you craft a narrative version of it with the available information?

Done. Kareldorado (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Players

    Why not make the "Previous squads" subsection into a table and place it at the end of the article (similar to Peru national football team)? I think it would help remove the excessive weight in the section.

    Players

    along the same lines, I would highly recommend for the "Player records" section to be mixed with the "Records and fixtures" section (which I would rename "Team records and fixtures"—I plan to do the same for the Peru article). Why? Because these are not just player records, but they are records for the team itself (i.e., specific to Belgium).

Partially done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Records and Fixtures

    I would place this section at the end.

Done. Kareldorado (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

These are the thoughts I have in mind at the moment. I hope they are not too much! Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 08:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, they are not few but I welcome every constructive remark! I am not sure I can make every adaptation this weekend, but we will see. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Great! Good job Karel. Remember that you can always continue to improve the article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Although there are a few bits of text which could be made more concise without losing meaning (I've fixed one), I think the article as a whole is admirably comprehensive. Well done! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and good job. If you can indicate some of the sentences that still appear to be rather long, I'll give it a try to further cut them down. Kareldorado (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes -- Hi Kareldorado, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC? A belated welcome in that case! It looks to me that we still need:

• Image licensing review
• Source review for formatting and reliability
• Source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, an extra hoop we ask newbies to jump through

These checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or one or two of the reviewers above might be able to oblige... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to point this out. I have been more busy last week irl, but in upcoming couple of days I will do the request. Kareldorado (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Current Staff: I don't see any reason to list a number of anonymous employees — podiatrist, nutritionist, video analyst, etc — in this section. A number of national and club football articles have become bloated by adding every employee listed on the team's website, even though these employees are not discussed in secondary sources. We should just keep the manager, the principal assistant coaches, and not many more than that. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your view and - partly - agree. The fact that they work more behind the scenes does not mean that their role is trivial, however. A podiatrist is a orthopedical physician, and because of that function seems notable. Wilmots stressed the importance of his analyst at some moments. However, I did not add staff that 'merely' fulfill an administrative function, like the makers of T-shirts and PR-representatives. I stand open for discussion, however, and am willing to drop these staff. Any other people's views? Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we need for medical personnel to get their own table, nor the need to list seven people here, most of whom the public has never heard of. The fact that the only cite here is to the RBFA website and not to any reliable independent secondary source is telling. Are there reliable independent secondary sources discussing how important these people are to the team's success? I am, however, like you, interested in others' views on this topic. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Competitive record: Not a fan of hiding all the tables. I quite enjoy glancing through articles and seeing a table of the World Cup record, and I suspect a number of casual wiki readers won't realize they can easily unhide the table. I am in favor, however, of not showing tables of every minor tournament the country has played in. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but what I oppose is that probably many readers are not fans of scrolling and keeping on scrolling. These tables won't get shorter, it will be the opposite. The tables are good and made with the needed detail, however, they would explode the visual size and the weight of numbers and statistics if expanded, IMO. Kareldorado (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want all these tables displayed fully here, as that would lead to a lot of clutter. However, I don't like the current red boxes on the page, they seem a bit of an eyesore to me. One option would be to list the World Cup table in full, but erase the other tables completely and put them on the linked pages. These are just my suggestions on how to improve, and I don't feel strongly, so if you think it's best left the way it is, so be it. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Notable players: These sections often create issues, particularly where they include current players, as various fans keep adding their favourite. The list of today's players in this article has 17 players. Surely half or even most of these are not among the best ever for Belgium. For example, the forward Origi has netted only 3 goals for Belgium in his career. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Image Licensing Review

• File:Gust De Muynck Belgium-Netherlands 1931.jpg ([61]) is missing a US public domain tag
• File:Édouard De Laveleye.jpg ([62]) is missing a US public domain tag
• File:BEL-LUX SO1928.JPG ([63]) is missing a US public domain tag
• File:1920 Olympic football final (Belgium v. Czechoslovakia), penalty Coppée.jpg ([64]) is missing a US public domain tag
• Brief comment on references: I generally keep the bibliography as a separate section from the references section. I also think that it would help make the article less bulky.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; licenses have been added and the bibliography stands apart now. Kareldorado (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from edwininlondon

I enjoyed finding out facts about the team. And a team that ranks number one surely deserves a featured article. A few comments about the lead:

• 1904. I'm not a fan of link labels that don't give a good sense of where it links to, and you have a few of those in the article. The 1904 in the first sentence is a good example. A link 1904 should go to the 1904 page, that's what happens elsewhere on WP. But I don't think that is useful here, we want a link to the Évence Coppée Trophy page. So better would be to rephrase the lead and spell it out.
• I don't think we need a footnote with the names in the 3 local languages in the lead. Further down maybe, although I'd nix it altogether.
• "alternated with major difficulties in qualifying" is rather vague and leaves the reader guessing: did or didn't they ever qualify?
• Is where they play so important that it warrants mentioning in the first paragraph? I don't think so.
• I think the 3rd paragraph should be dismantled. The first two sentences do not have any notable info that justifies being in the lead. The next sentence "After winning four games at the three Olympic football tournaments in the 1920s, the team failed to win matches at any major tournament finals in the next four decades. " largely repeats what already was mentioned earlier. The last sentence could be rewritten and merged with the golden eras paragraph.
• "qualified for Euro 2016" that doesn't strike me as making it a golden generation. I would drop it. Key fact is they top the FIFA ranking.
• I believe a squad should be the lead image, not the same image as shown on the Royal Belgian Football Association. I've brought this up on the Project Football Talk page in October. Surely the reader expects to see players wearing the typical kit.

More later, once I've got my football bible, The Ball is Round, in front of me. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As much as you enjoyed reading it, I now enjoy receiving these justified comments, Edwin. Upcoming week (and as soon as possible irl) I will try to apply and/or comment to all of these remarks and suggestions. I am also looking forward to your fresh input based on your football bible. Cheers, Kareldorado (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've made minor changes already, as you may have noticed, hope you agreed with those, and here are my comments for remainder of the article. My main concern is about links. Sorry, but I just feel strongly about having good links, as unpredictable links damage WP's overall user experience as well. I'll explain below:

• "Belgium was the first mainland European country to play association football". In The Ball is Round Goldblatt writes that Denmark was the first in Europe outside the British Isles to set up a club (1876), and organise themselves nationally (1889). See page 120. He does not give a date for when the first balls were kicked in Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Belgium, the first beachgeads of football on the continent (p. 119). "one of the first" seems to be a good way to describe this.
• "does not recognise these results" I'm not keen on this being a link. Once you start internal links like that, then for consistency many other mentioned results should also link. I think it detracts more than it gains. I checked the Peru national football team page, of FA status, and that has no internal links as far as I can see. The link for "unrecognised friendlies" is equally dubious: instead of finding out what is meant by unrecognised (as happens with the link for exhibition matches) the reader is unexpectedly shown a list of results. I would not link that either. My view is to have no internal links at all, but am keen to hear what other, more experienced editors think.
• "the first manager of the Red Devils" This is the first time the Red Devils are mentioned outside the lead. I couldn't find anything in the MoS, but more experienced editors might be able to advise whether it's fine here or whether the Red Devils needs to be introduced here as the nickname, with explanation. I would explain. In any case, in the lead it is in italics, here it is not, and in the Kit section it is in quotes. My interpretation of the MoS is that italics is not advised, not sure about quotes. I'd opt for just plain text. Whatever you choose, be consistent with the White Devils.
• "As the White Devils, Belgium had" I think linking is used here to avoid explanation. I would just explain and no link.
• "At Euro 1972, their first Euro appearance, they finished third. " For such a significant result, there is not enough information. Whom did they lose to in the semis? Or at least Who did they beat to win bronze?
• "Beginning with a second-place finish at Euro 1980," again more info needed. Fewer words are spent on this than on some friendlies against Morocco, Cyprus Japan, which feels wrong. Link to the UEFA Euro 1980 Final page
• Not keen at all on the link labels for the various years. Users will expect it to go to a generic page about the year. See if you can rewrite to "Euro 1984" etc
• Link to the 2002 World Cup is missing
• "and took the top spot" it sounds so much like an afterthought, while it deserves a sentence on its own. It's too significant to be hidden away.
• Home stadium section: I think there is too much irrelevant info here. Good info, but relevant only on the stadium's own page, not here. I bet one paragraph suffices.
• See also: Television in Belgium: another example of overlinking.
• "Decades later, television became a more popular medium for football broadcasts" seems plausible, although the radio was very popular before tv. In any case, my point is: source?
• "As 59 per cent of the Belgians speak Dutch and 41 per cent French,... third official language in Belgium" also needs a source
• "matches are transmitted in both languages" sounds a bit odd, maybe "matches' commentaries", or maybe rephrase to something with "both Dutch and French channel"?
• Support as a section name seems a bit odd. Maybe do Supporters, like Peru national football team page
• "as of 2014" are any up to date numbers available?
• "a defensive tactic developed in the 1960s by Anderlecht coach Pierre Sinibaldi." Goldblatt on page 187 talks about offsite traps used by Newcastle Utd in the 1920s. So developed should not be read as invented. Maybe a bit of rephrasing. Sorry my French is not good enough to understand the source.
• "Master tactician" Goethals .. "not be bigger" When quotation marks are used the person saying it should be mentioned.
• I don't think the staff is notable enough beyond assistant coach and goalie coach. A whole table for this takes up way too much space. A simple sentence should suffice. The Peru page does not have this.
• "nearly blind" is said by whom?
• The show and hide doesn't do it for me. The legend is visible when WC record is hidden.
• "Forward Robert Coppée had converted .. pitch in the 40th minute" needs a source
• "discussed early penalty" is that disputed or much talked about?
• Inconsistent ISBN format. Most are ISBN 13 but a few are ISBN 10. Easy to convert them here: http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter

I have not checked the sources. If no one else does, I could, if you'd like me to. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work, from tomorrow on I can try to solve multiple issues a day. We can await the demand for source checking at the Talk page a couple more days - you did already an incredible effort - but else, yes, you'd be welcome to do so. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard Justice (2008)

Nominator(s): WillC 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominating this article since I'm working on an FA topic. Other PPVs from this year that are FA are Lockdown and Turning Point. This article passed GA in December 2008. I redid the entire article in recent weeks. Added more material and better sources. Reads better in my opinion and has a better format. All comments welcome. I'll review a nomination of your's in return for a review here. To address some concerns now, I'll list the reason some of the sources are reliable.

• TNA - Company hosting event, primary reference.
• Pro Wrestling history.com - covers little information such as contest duration and attendance. Used for those non-controversial aspects. Reliable enough since it gathers information from interviews and event broadcasts, etc.
• WrestleView - Primarily ran by Andrew Martin who has special connections in the industry and regularly interviews large names in the industry. Basically has ties to special information. Reliable in the sense that they have enough credibility to get interviews about the behind the scenes discussions.
• PWTorch - Ran by Wade Keller who published the Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter since the 80s and 90s. Also has ties to the industry.
• Slam Sports - Canadian Online Explorer, should be obvious why it is reliable.
• The Wrestling Observer Newsletter/Figure Four - Dave Meltzer, mainstream journalist for MMA, Wrestling, and other sports. Should be obvious to his credibility.
• Discovery communications and About.com - Both funded and operated by Discovery channel to my understanding.

This should help clear up any possibly sourcing issues.--WillC 12:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Review by starship.paint

Alright, all my concerns addressed. Support. starship.paint ~ KO 01:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In the lede, I don't think remembered for the start of a storyline between veteran wrestlers and younger wrestlers in TNA is worth a mention. Do you have a source explicitly saying that? The MEM formed in October and this PPV was in August. Torch reviews should cover the info. All the impact reviews discussed the storyline. The storyline started way before the Main Event Mafia formed. It was in full force heading into BFG. This event was basically the start of the feud but I could removed it. Just a way to show the significance of the event. Alot of stuff happened that led to be important in the storyline. The problem is that it seems like it is you, and not the reviewers, who is claiming the significance of the event. That seems to be OR. I hope that you can point to which references can support the info. I'm explaining why the event is notable outside of being just a PPV, which goes by the MoS. I am not saying it is entirely significant or saying this is a fact. I'm saying the storyline did have a starting point at the event. Which it did because Hard Justice and Victory Road directly led to Styles vs Sting, Joe vs. Sting, and the creation of the Main Event Mafia. It set up for Jarrett's return. You've taken the statement too literal to say I am making a claim of significance when all I'm doing is summarizing the storyline at the time and afterwards. To source this statement, all I have to do is cite the Impact episodes. Reviewer's opinions nor my opinion play a role. What was occurring around the event is what matters.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Reading your reply, I request a simple change. Just swap "is remembered for" to "featured", and this issue will be settled. That is the problematic phrase IMO. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC) I'm fine with changing things but in previous FAs I just went along with what ever someone wanted. I plan to be more stubborn this time around. Find reasons for the change that are credible. I can agree to what you are asking now.--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC) The title and the quote in reference [1] seems to be wrong. Old reference, they must have changed the title. It seems like AyAyAya was also sung by Ice-T in the music video. It featured Ice-T. Information on this is covered in the event. Written sources don't discuss the theme much. I don't see Melle Mel appearing in the source provided. See above. Each match has a match timing written but not all references have match timings. Covered in the results table. Sourcing it every time to me is oversourcing. I know it is in the results table ... but new readers might not know. I reject that logic because new readers don't even look at the sourcing let alone will research to make sure every little detail is correct. The information is sourced in the article.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I meant readers new to wrestling, not necessarily readers new to Wikipedia. starship.paint ~ KO 12:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC) I was referring to both. I doubt even wrestling fans will look. They'll just go by whatever the page says. Most have tried to remove the times in the past. Wrestling fans don't see to like the match times in the article. They are primarily there to seem professional.--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) For the 1st match, can you explain Sheik Abdul Bashir's sudden interference? Like saying he walked out...? Done. For the 2nd match, why is Six Woman Tag Team match capitalized? Cause it is a proper match type. Just used so often that people don't capitalize it. At one point it was just like Hell in a Cell. Also for the 2nd match, SLAM, Torch (Keller) and Wrestleview say it was a roll up, not a straddle pin? Case where the sources aren't detailed enough. They call every pin a roll up pin. It was actually a straddle pin. Borderline OR, but accuracy is better than no accuracy. It's totally OR, IMO. Caldwell says it's a "roll-through pin" though. You can follow that "Wilde rolled through into a pin". It can't be a regular straddle anyway, she's facing the wrong way. Need a source saying "straddle". Moved to just pinning maneuver. Can't verify it is a roll up or straddle because citing the event conflicts with the reviews. Grey area is better.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC) The rephrasing sounds redundant, how about "Wilde won the match for her team with a pinning maneuver on Love at at 11 minutes and 27 seconds" starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Done--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) For the 3rd match, Torch doesn't say exactly who raps, only "the rappers" Referring to the ones at the beginning of the show, somewhat obvious. Is there any point in writing that turnbuckles are padded? Old habits die hard, removed. How was it determined that the 5th and 6th matches were also main event matches? Heavily promoted matches. Covered in background section. Just because a match is heavily promoted doesn't make them main event matches. There should be some announcement of co-main event or dual or triple main events. TNA doesn't announce what are the main event or dual or anything. The last three matches were all connected. The Main event matches section was never just for main event matches, it was for heavily promoted matches always. It was called main event just cause it sounded better than other choices. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D match was connected to the Angle/Styles match. The Angle/Styles match connected to Booker T/Joe. The last two are main event, defacto the first would be main event as well. Each headlined the show. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D feud actually started in May so it led up to this event. Heavily promoted.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Then the naming of 'main event matches' is a misnomer, honestly. It's quite WP:OR IMO to judge 'heavily promoted matches' unless you have a source explicitly saying that these matches are heavily promoted. It's all rather subjective, left to the interpretation of editors. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC) I'd challenge that it is OR. OR is research that can't be verified. These can be verified. Being a heavily promoted match would be verified by material that verifies its notability. Having a large amount of information that focuses on that one subject matches it as a heavily promoted match. The Impact episodes, the content on Hard Justice, and the follow up by TNA can verify that they are heavily promoted matches. The matches I cover in the background section tend to be the heavily promoted matches. The only issue with the section header is when a match is at the end that does not fit the case that gets placed in between ones that do. Take Owens vs. Cesaro at SummerSlam. Not even announced and just popped up. We can't really change the match order then when another main event was Cena vs. Rollins. I could retitle the section header but to what is the issue? Heavily Promoted? Uppercard? What?--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) I'd prefer the section header be 'Heavily promoted matches' then - because 'heavily promoted' is simply not equal to 'main event'. Reading a section header called 'Main event matches' leads me to believe that every main in there is a co-main event. If you do this, Owens v Cesaro can't become a 'main event' match. starship.paint ~ KO 07:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC) For the 5th match, Brother Ray couldn't have gone through a table if the table didn't break, as the per source. Technically the table broke, just not in the middle. Bottom part broke and it fell over. Changed to against. For the 5th match, SLAM alone does not support all the information written. Slam is only meant to cover the finish. All info is from PWTorch removes. Aggregate sourcing verifies everything. I get that the info is from Torch. Then the Torch should appear as a reference at the end of the source. Readers shouldn't have to search other places for verifiability. This goes for the match timings as well. Again, I use the logic from above. What reader takes the time to not just read an article they have limited knowledge of but also check every single source to make sure the information is completely verifiable. The other sources cover the information as well. I can move another source to the section but really Slam is covering the finish which is the main issue at hand. For the 6th match, how about mentioning that the first fall came at around 18:00 as per the source? Rounding error, wasn't sure if it was accurate. Chose to not put timing of falls down. Also the 6th match, it's worth mentioning the last move of the match was a DDT, and the post-match attack on Angle was a brainbuster. The source provided said so. It wasn't really a brainbuster, just looked like a brainbuster. Styles literally just lifted him up and dropped him on his head like a brainbuster. Seemed reaching to me to claim it was a brainbuster when that is more the opinion of the reviewer. The reference you cited, Torch's Keller, said "DDT off the top rope" and "brainbuster suplex". Meanwhile the other sources conflict with saying just suplex or he landed on his head from the top rope. Citing the event, which cites the match, shows that it was a botched attempt at some sort of move. Can't be verified that it is either one. I can give the benefit of the doubt on the brainbuster, but on the other hand the four sources agree that it's a DDT from the top that ended the match. By neglecting to mention this ... you will confuse wrestling fans. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Like with the Wilde/Love stuff above I think it is best to be in the grey area. I could link to move from the top as a DDT but just describing what occurred is better than making a judgment call and saying it was a certain move.--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) In the Reception section, are the "Boring", "Fire Russo" and "You screwed Bret" crowd chants worth a mention? What chants are you discussing? Don't see either of those mentioned. SLAM source mentioned all these chants. "Canadian Online Explorer writer John Pollock reviewed the show and felt it featured the "usual assortment of wacky finishes and outside interference" but that "all in all it was a solid show." Pollock commented on the musical performance shown at the beginning of the telecast, stating the "crowd is silent in appreciation." "Crowd is very hot for this opener and the atmosphere should hopefully add to this show," stated Pollock when covering the TNA X Division Championship match. Pollock discussed the Street Fight in his review, commenting that the "crowd was really hot for this match." As for the Last Man Standing match, Pollock said it "was an outstanding match." Pollock also felt that the main event got "zero time." - Still don't see the chants in the body of the article. If you are asking if they are notable. Not really, they occurred at every TNA PPV in 2008. The fans just chant random stuff constantly.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Oops. There was a misunderstanding. I was arguing for the inclusion of such chants for Wikipedia's write-up of Pollock's review. As a wrestling fan reading about this article in 2015, I would still find chants like "Fire Russo" to be extremely interesting. It doesn't matter if they occurred in every other TNA PPV in 2008, that is just reflecting the state of the product. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC) I may be able to include it. Idk. I don't really discuss the Black Tie Brawl and Chain match in the reception or background. It is about a line or so. I'll give it a shot.--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Replied to all @Starship.paint:--WillC 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC) @Wrestlinglover: replied starship.paint ~ KO 05:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) @Starship.paint: See comments--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC) @Starship.paint: See comments--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) @Starship.paint: All concerns handled.--WillC 04:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC) @Wrestlinglover: Two problems with the storylines for Joe-Booker. First, you write that Victory Road was a no contest, yet Booker won by pinfall. Please rewrite, don't state Booker won, just write Sharmell counted an unofficial pinfall. Second problem, you missed out saying that Booker stole the belt during Victory Road after the main event. Fixed the pinfall thing. I do mention that Joe does not have the belt. It is stated in the lines after VR. He did not maintain possession of the belt, chose to take it back at Hard Justice. Yeah. You mentioned Joe didn't retrieve physical possession of the title belt on July 17, but you never mentioned that he lost physical possession on July 13, so there is room for confusion here. Still, there is an offending phrase a no contest after interference from Sting allowed Booker T to win - the word win is still not suitable. Fixed both issues Try Joe was still the TNA World Heavyweight Champion, despite Booker T having taken the physical title belt Doneish As for the storyline between Angle-Styles, from reading the Torch source, it seems that Styles and Karen already had something going on before February 14 (from Styles' POV, at least). Also, whatever came out of the marriage of Styles and Karen though? Was it cancelled? Nothing happened, just hints at the storyline. They dropped it almost entirely. It was just there to add tension in the storyline.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Then it should be clarified that nothing further came of that on-air 'marriage'. Addressed I think Propose a rewrite of a convoluted (LOLTNA) sentence: On the February 14 episode of Impact!, at a scripted wedding vow renewal ceremony meant for real-life spouses Kurt Angle and Karen Angle, the priest mistakenly married Styles and Karen instead in the storyline. Don't see how that is any better than what is already in the article.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) The article seems to imply that the wedding between Styles and Karen was planned (in kayfabe), in spite of Karen's real and scripted marriage to Kurt. The article also misses out that Karen and Kurt were renewing their vows. The main point is the marriage between Styles and Karen. The Kurt/Karen thing just makes the whole plot convoluted and hard for someone to understand what is going on when it didn't become a large deal afterwards. It just led to this match. It was seeds for a future angle. In fact, TNA actually did have it set where Karen and the Styles wedding was legitimate. What it seems like they are doing is exactly what they were doing.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Since this whole Styles-Angle storyline involved Karen, I think the real-life divorce of Karen from Kurt in October 2008 is worth a one-line mention. Feud was over by then. This storyline didn't play a role in the real life divorce. That probably had more to do with Jarrett vs Angle than Angle vs Styles.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Word replacement: on the August 21 episode of Impact! in a ladder match for the medal, with Styles winning the medal starship.paint ~ KO 07:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC) He won it the week before. Word is correct since he retains the medal that was already in his possession.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Oops. My bad. It's cool @Starship.paint: See concerns.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) @Wrestlinglover: replied starship.paint ~ KO 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC) @Starship.paint: See concerns.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC) @Wrestlinglover: - one reply. I had enough of Karen, this is almost done. starship.paint ~ KO 08:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Starship.paint: I'm indifferent. Too busy to worry but about wikipedia anyway.--WillC 10:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Flash!

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Flash! is a 1995 platform video game that has the distinction of being one of the most overlooked games of all time as well as the first platform game in "true 3D". It was originally hoped by Sony that this game would give them the opportunity to create themselves a "platform star" like Sonic and Mario, but that never materialised. This game was nothing more than a technology demonstration for the then-new PlayStation console and was very quickly overshadowed by games like Super Mario 64. Despite all that, many critics recognise this game's legacy and importance associated with early 3D gaming.

I've been re-working this article for a while now and I believe this meets the FA criteria. I know that after I've exhausted every possible source, and with the help of some others, I've gained some more that I didn't think were possible, so a big thanks goes out to everyone who has helped over the months. FYI, the reason why it failed last time was due to some misinterpretations with some sources, but after an extensive peer review and a copyedit, I believe they have all been addressed. JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this a read and let you know what I think! I haven't reviewed an article for some time, but this just happened to catch my eye.--SexyKick 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi SexyKick, just wondering if you would still like to leave some input? No rush of course, but I'd hate to see this get closed due to inactivity. JAGUAR  10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The last time I was reading through, I remarked to myself that sentences / paragraphs in the Plot section didn't seem to end with citations. I checked two references in the Reception and Legacy and both held up. But I don't know when I'm going to have time between real life rock, and real life hard place.--SexyKick 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry about this too much, I'm not that anxious just yet. Plot sections don't need to be sourced, although most of the basic plot is covered in the game's manual itself. JAGUAR  16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
Rhain1999, Z105space, Famous Hobo
Comments/No vote yet
Techtri
Oppose
None

Comments from Techtri

It's certainly in better shape than last time it came up for FAC, but I've still got some concerns. On a quick read through I noticed the following.

Lead:

• "Jumping Flash! has been described as synonymous with Sony's debut gaming hardware" - By who? There's no reference here, and this doesn't get mentioned again later in the article as far as I can tell.

• Rephrased to "Jumping Flash! has been described as an ancestor as well as an early showcase for 3D graphics in console gaming", as it's mentioned in the article as well as in numerous sources.[65][66] JAGUAR  14:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Under Development and release:

• I think I'm right in saying "PreScreen - Jumping Flash! (April 1995)". Edge (Future plc) (19): 41. April 1995.", "Edge - Pre Screen". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." and ""Staff. PreScreen - Jumping Flash!". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." reference different pages of the same article, so why do they use different titles? Also the date appears twice in the first one for some reason.

• Fixed both JAGUAR  14:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of combining the two refs that pointed to the same page of the same article [67]. Techtri (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology, vastly differing from other contemporaneous platform games such as Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island." - Sourced to Edge's July 1995 review, but I can't see any comparison in the source between JF! and either of the games mentioned?

• I've removed the comparisons as it wasn't mentioned in the sources given. However, there are a couple of comparisons with Super Mario 64, but I chose not to mention it here as it doesn't seem relevant. JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand what is meant by 3D technology in the sentence "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology.".

• 3D technology sounds a bit vague, but I think 3D computer graphics would sound more accurate. I've changed it to that JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Geograph Seal image caption states that JF! "features identical gameplay from Geograph Seal". The IGN source states they shared "virtually identical gameplay", which I'd say was a important distinction.

• Good catch, upon this reflection I've rephrased it to "similar gameplay traits", as the lead also mentions "Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal". JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Under Reception and Legacy:

• "...in 2000 they ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time." - two references here, both with concerns. "Famitsu Top 120 PlayStation games". Culdcept Central. OmiyaSoft. 27 July 2009. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - is this a reliable source? and "Famitsu Weekly PlayStation Top 100". IGN. 21 November 2000. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - I can't see any mention of Jumping Flash in this source?

• This always bothered me. I asked somebody if Culdcept Central was a reliable source, and he wasn't too keen on it. I was going to bring this up at WP:VG/RS but unfortunately I didn't have time to do it prior to this FAC. Even though it's the only source I can find that mentions a legitimate Famitsu Top 120 list, I myself don't think it's reliable and I can't find any such list anywhere else, so I've had no choice but to remove the entire sentence. Unless somebody has the original Famitsu issue and could translate into English, I'm left with no other choice than to leave as "Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review". If you want, I could remove that sentence entirely and leave it as a score in the infobox? JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• You just have to know which issue of Famitsu those excerpts are from. Reference the magazine itself. ... cite news |title= |journal= |publisher= |date= |language= |author=Famitsu staff}}</ref>--SexyKick 17:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't find the definite issue or when it was published. Culdcept Central mentions that the list was published "recently" as of 2009, whereas I've searched for "120 PlayStation games of all time" and sometimes it comes back as being a November 2000 issue. I don't think is worth it, so I'm open to removing it entirely or should I leave this be? JAGUAR  19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Andrew Yoon's Engadget review is a contemporary one right? If so, personally I would move it to after the 2007 IGN review along with the rest of the retrospective reviews, or at the very least mention it was a 2007 review so it doesn't appear to be a review from the time calling it antiquated.

• Moved this to the end of the paragraph JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Much clearer now. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• "1UP cited its first-person platforming as a precursor to Mirror's Edge, despite suggesting that the jumping has remained "woefully out of place"." - Is the source referring to jumping being "woefully out of place" in JF! or in the genre as a whole?

• In the genre as a whole, as the article is focused on the history of the jump. Reworded to reflect this JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• In which case, it it relevant to include it in this article? Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I feel that it's relevant because it's a retrospective on Jumping Flash's legacy participation on the evolution of the jump. It also criticises the game's jumps, which in part is both relevant with reception and legacy. I wouldn't mind removing it from the section but I'd hate to lose out on a good source. JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Speaking in 2007, Fahey asserted that Jumping Flash! would always have a "slice" in videogaming history" - This is a very clunky sentence and needs rewriting.

• I agree. I've merged this with the previous sentence to smooth it out a little JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still finding a "slice" in videogaming history. awkward to read. A "slice in" something just doesn't sound right to me. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, I find "slice" a bit awkward. Reworded to "a part in videogaming history" JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and find time to give it a more thorough look over later. Techtri (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Techtri: ping, sorry to bother. Just anxious about FAC inactivity. JAGUAR  19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain1999

I apologise if any of my concerns have been discussed in a previous discussion, but I noticed a few things:

Lead

• In the lead, shouldn't 'Robbit' be in double quotation marks ("), rather than single (')? I'm not entirely sure.

• Changed to double for consistency. I find it hard to remember using American quotation marks on Wikipedia JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• In my experience, I've regularly seen references placed after direct quotes (see the second paragraph of Fez), so it should be considered for the third paragraph of the lead here, with the term "ancestor".

• Agreed, I've added a citation after "ancestor"

• Jumping Flash! spawned two sequels; Jumping Flash! 2.... I'd replace the semicolon with a colon.

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Link IGN.

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Body

• Link Egypt in "Gameplay".

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• There are a lot of quotes in "Reception and legacy". I don't quite think it's pushing the limit, so it should be okay, but that second paragraph stands out a bit.

• I've done some minor copyediting and have tried to cut the quotes a bit. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Link Greg Miller (Internet celebrity).

• Linked JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's necessary to have two paragraphs in "Sequels".

• Yeah, the first paragraph seems rather short. I've merged the two together JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I found a number of issues with the references, but it was difficult for me to explain them all, so I went through and made some changes myself. Please feel free to adjust my changes where you feel necessary.

• Thank you for the changes! JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There might be more, but I'll let other editors point those out; I couldn't find anything else. This is a really well-written article, and I'll be happy to support the FAC when these issues are addressed. Good luck! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Rhain! I've addressed all of your concerns. I hope I didn't miss anything. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything so quickly! The only thing that really bothers me now is the length of the third "Gameplay" paragraph and second "Plot" paragraph, but these are minor personal nitpicks, and should only be changed if you see an appropriate way to do so. Since that's minor, I'm very happy to Support this FAC. Well done on all your hard work; good luck with the rest of the candidacy! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Much appreciated. I'll see what I can do about the two shorter paragraphs, but I can't think of any more to put in from the top of my head. JAGUAR  22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

Lead

• The game follows a robotic rabbit named "Robbit" as he searches for missing Jet Pods that have been scattered by the game's astrophysicist antagonist character Baron Aloha. Why are Jet Pods capitalized? I don't believe they're proper nouns.

• True, I thought they were referring to a specific item but I checked the manual and it seems they're not capitalised in there, so fixed JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal, an earlier game by Exact for the Sharp X68000 home computer. Change uses to utilizes.

• Done JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jumping Flash! has been described as an "ancestor"[1]... Why include the ref when it's already referenced in the legacy section?

• I can't remember, but it was either in this FAC or the peer review where I got told that a citation was required after a direct quote in the lead. But it's not a big deal, and I prefer no citations in the lead anyway. Removed both the ref and quote. JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The game was generally well received by critics, who praised its graphics and its unique 3D platforming gameplay, but it was eventually overshadowed by later 3D platformers of the fifth console generation. The compound sentence here is a bit awkward, as the two independent clauses don't work well in relation to one another. I'd remove the but, and change it to a period, followed by a however,...

• Good catch, rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The game was described as the third-most underrated video game of all time by Matt Casamassina of IGN in 2007. Remove the Matt Casamassina link, as it just redirects to IGN, which is already linked two words later in the same sentence.

• I could've sworn he had his own article, but I've removed all links JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a general note, five sentences in the lead begin with "the game". While this shouldn't be an issue, I feel a bit uneasy about the repetition. You may want to rephrase some of those sentences to alleviate the repetition.

• Removed some repetition. It does sound better this way JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Jumping chains can be performed using enemies and some projectiles. Elaborate on this a bit more, because while I'm assuming you mean jump on enemies head like in Super Mario Bros, but a casual reader may have no idea what that means.

• I've elaborated on this a bit more. Jumping chains are initiated by jumping on enemies or their projectiles in succession, just like in Super Mario platforms. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Power-ups scattered across each world are picture frames representing carrots to extend Robbit's health, extra lives, time-outs that stop the clock and freeze the level's dynamics for a few seconds, hourglasses that extend the player's time... Their should be mention of the time limit for each level before this sentence, as this was the first time I read about said timed levels.

• Not exactly a time limit, but every level is 10 minutes long and will end once that time runs out. But you're right, it's a worthy mention so I've included it. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Coins that are worth points can also be picked up by destroying enemies that are often anthropomorphic versions of creatures such as kiwis and penguins, but also include robots and plants. Link kiwis and penguins.

• Done. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• All good here, though I'm going to assume limbered is the British-English equivalent of legged. Either way, it works.

• Limbs refer to both arms and legs; I thought it would be more accurate to describe the creatures. I don't know if it's anything to do with English variants JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Development and release

• Sony's director of entertainment in Japan, Koji Tada, paired Exact with Ultra to develop a technology demonstration for the upcoming PlayStation console. The last part regarding the technology demonstration is unnecessary, is it was already stated in almost the exact same way it's mentioned in the second sentence.

• Good catch; removed. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ultra designed the story, characters and 3D cutscenes, and was responsible for creating the mechanical rabbit protagonist, Robbit. Shouldn't Robbit be lumped in with characters? Ultra designed the characters.

• I think so. Rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The characters were designed by the Japanese studio Ultra who renamed themselves "Muu Muu" after the creatures in the game. You already stated that Ultra designed the characters. Plus, shouldn't the part about the MuuMuu's go in the legacy section, since the game had an impact on the outside world after it was released?

• Removed the repetition of character-creation and moved the company renaming to the Legacy section. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review at the time of release. Can you get any more in depth about the review? Also, Famitsu PS seems a little unnecessary, since it's not mentioned in the reception section, and is more or less an off shoot of Famitsu.

• Unfortunately I don't have access to the review as it's not online. I can't remember who added it. The only extracts I can find are from unreliable sites so I can't use them. Should I remove the review from the section? JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I found a scan. But I can't read Japanese! Anyway, since I can't elaborate the review, I've removed the prose. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• In 2007, Matt Casamassina of IGN ranked Jumping Flash! as the third-most underrated video game of all time. I don't think it's important to link Matt Casamassina, as it just redirects to IGN, and doing a quick glance through IGN's article, Casamassina doesn't appear.

• Removed JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Robbit Mon Dieu was released exclusively in Japan for the PlayStation in 1999, and was the final instalment in the series. It was met with mixed reviews... You should mention how Jumping Flash 2 was received, to keep in line with the mention of Robbit Mon Dieu.

• I've added a little about its reception, but I chose not to dwell on about it because it would have seemed irrelevant to this article. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

References

• All mentions of 1UP.com have IGN linked as it's publisher. I don't really know the exact publisher, but according to WP:VG/S, the publisher is UGO Networks. Change it if you wish. Since most FA articles I've seen referencing 1UP always use IGN as the publisher, it's not that big of a deal.

• I don't know what is correct, but I'm going to trust WP:VG/S and go with UGO Networks. Fixed all JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

All done. With the exception of maybe one or two issues of explaining in more detail, most issues are just minor complaints that can easily be dealt with. Overall, very nice article on a very influential yet completely forgotten game. Fix the issues, and you've got yourself a support. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: thanks for the review! I think I've addressed everything. This is truly a forgotten game, you're right. It was one of the first PlayStation games developed (arguably the first, if you take into account that it was a technology demonstration). This is why the artwork has different dimensions, as apparently PlayStation cases were DVD-shaped in very early North American releases. Writing this article has been a rewarding and interesting experience. Anyway, it seems I owe you one for reviewing this! JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar:, it always amazes me how your able to find those magazine scans. I might have to ask you to find a specific magazine in the future. Anyway, I do feel it's somewhat necessary to include Japanese reviews for games first released in Japan, but as that almost impossible for anyone outside of Japan, I understand. Though I find it weird having just Famitsu listed twice, with different scores, because this will almost certainly confuse the reader. Also, I think I incorrectly phrased my earlier issue with Famitsu PS. What I meant to say was just remove it. It bears no real importance to the article, and it's just an offshoot of the much more distinguished Famitsu. Once that's cleared up, you have my Support. Really, I'm giving you a support right now though. Congrats! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've dealt with the Famitsu issues you mentioned. Although cited correctly, they shouldn't be in the article as I can't read Japanese for the review. Yeah, I'm not sure if some of the sites the scans are on are considered unreliable, but I'm used to all this digging as I only write retro games. I suppose I can return the favour by helping you searching for information at some point. Anyway, thanks for the support! JAGUAR  17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now I officially Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – I had my say at Peer review where my comments with Referencing were dealt with. The article is in better shape than it was in its previous FAC. Z105space (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! JAGUAR  13:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the family of French descent who were pivotal in later medieval English history and the contemporary view of it. Recently received a warm welcome at FAC before becoming embroiled in questions of sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• I'm looking at this diff of the changes since the last time I did a prose review, in September. It's kind of slow going, because the intervening edits have a lot of typos. I've fixed a few; I'm down to "In the early 12th century, the marriage of Geoffrey V of Anjou to Empress Matilda, King Henry I's only surviving legitimate child and heir to the English throne.", which isn't a sentence. Please check the diff (from that point) for more typos before I do another prose review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have run through the diff and done a quick copy edit on a few things. Will review again when all the responses to comments are edited in. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Magna Carta": Sometimes with "the", sometimes not. I'm not taking a position either way ... in fact, I don't personally think perfect consistency is required, but generally FAC standards require consistency.
• "agreed a treaty", etc.: I'm completely in favor (favour!) of exposing everyone, even Americans, to Briticisms in British English articles ... but I'm not convinced that all or even most Americans will work out what this means. In AmEng, this can only mean "agreed that a treaty (something)".
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. It was fine when I commented earlier (after my changes) down to where I said I stopped, and I've just copyedited from there to the end based on a diff from September through today. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Richard_II_King_of_England.jpg

• Links fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• File:Agincour.JPG: what is the basis for the "PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR NON EDITORIAL USAGE" notation?

• To tell you the truth I don't know and have been unable to find out. To resolve I have changed this to a simpler image.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• File:MS_Ghent_-_Battle_of_Tewkesbury.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Tag added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Support: All my points below have been addressed and I can't find any new ones. I have made one comment immediately below but it has no bearing on my support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Comments:

• Forgive my confusion here, but I am left wondering one major thing: was the House, in the large, based in England or France? I realize this is a matter of some subtly, but it doesn't really seem to be addressed directly. The lede says "The family held the English throne from 1154" and goes on to describe their history almost solely in terms of English events. However, the maps in the body show that in terms of land, and I assume income, the majority of the family was in (today's) France. A little color here would be appreciated.

• Hi @Maury Markowitz:— could you please look at this one again because I thought this was clear. The Angevin kings were both Francophonic and largely preoccupied with French affairs. The loss of Anjou, Normandy and Maine reduced this although Henry III retained both his nominal claims until the 1250s and the Duchy of Aquitaine as a peer of France which passed in turn to the Edwards. Edward III claimed the English throne and through this the basis of the Hundred Years War. The War ebbed and flowed, during which Henry VI was crowned king of France and the family began to speak English. I think all this is in there and clear. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess my only concern here is in the lede. Britannica and most other similar sources define the Plantagenets as English. I know this isn't strictly accurate, as this article notes, but I think we still need something to indicate/sooth this confusion. Perhaps something like "Although originally from the continent, and retaining large holdings in France, they are considered to be an English dynasty." Does that make sense? I'm not sure how to word it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Also, the lede mentions "after the Plantagenets were defeated in the Hundred Years' War". For most of those 100 years, English troops were rampaging though France, and I'm not sure they could be said to have "lost". Is it not the case they ended up with more territory at the end? A second map, like the first one in the body, might be useful - the mapping crew is a good source for this.

• No, it is not the case they ended with more territory at the end, after 1453 the only remaining holdings were Calais and the Channel Islands. I don't think a map of this would be too instructive? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "was scourged by monks" - what does this mean?

• It means severely whipped, I have ammended to this effect.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The rivalry between " - should this not be the start of a new paragraph?

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Conflict with the House of Valois" - the first para seems to be damaged. Actually this whole section reads oddly and could use some copyediting.

• Done—is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The younger Henry rebelled" - this is a different rebellion mentioned in the earlier para? If so, was Henry the Young not involved in those events?

• Added "again" to indicate he was a repeat offender Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "accept humiliating peace terms, " - to which conflict? Is this the one Younger's wife started?

• Rephrased to be clearer Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Richard was captured by Leopold" - why? it seems odd one would simply place another in captivity without a cases belli. is this over the spoils?

• In part yes, I've added some detail to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "was injured by an arrow during the siege" - what siege?

• Amended to a more general "a siege"—I don't think which one is of great interest.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "when Arthur's forces threatened his mother" - how, exactly? A verbal threat or military action?

• amended for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "As a result of John's behaviour" - uh, what behaviour? Winning a battle over rebels? Or did he do something to them?

• He did, more detail added to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "It was rumoured in the" is this part of the earlier narrative, or did this occur later? Is this the "behaviour" part?

• The revolt happened before the rumour, I have tried to make this clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "explaining John's sudden capitulation" - what sudden capitulation? Was there a treaty signed in here somewhere?

• I've rephrased this, no treaty at this point, just a collapse.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Support – I have read the comments at the earlier FAC and of course I defer to those more expert than I in English history, but as an averagely well-read layman I found the article fascinating, and it seems to me balanced and well sourced. I feel I must support its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 15:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually before I do, I recommend @Hchc2009: having a look to see if they are satisfied with improvements since the last FAC as I am not knowledgeable with the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Also @Ealdgyth: - I'm waiting to see what those two say, as my comments last time were mostly dealt with ok, but theirs not, during the FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to look at this again - but my main question is ... were all the citations checked against the sources that are supposed to be supporting them? If not, its going to be very difficult for me to support this, given the problems I found last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Largely the answer is yes. All the Jones references which was the main objection last time have been replaced and all those that you identified in your review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the concern was whether all the references had been checked back against the original sources; last time around quite a lot proved to have problems when they were examined, and Eadgyth was keen that all the references had all been individually checked. I share her concern with this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, HCHC2009. While I am wading through these, now would be the time to raise any other concerns (from any reviewer). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Update—71/152 checked so far. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Update—97/152 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Update—99/ what is now 145 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Update—110 / 139 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Update—112 / 126 checked. 14 to go, nearly there! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Y—@Hchc2009:@Casliber:@Johnbod:@Ealdgyth:—for information I have checked what I could and replaced those that I couldn't check. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seiken Densetsu 3

Nominator(s): PresN 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In 1995, American/European role-playing video game fans were eagerly awaiting the release of what they called Secret of Mana 2—the sequel to 1993's Secret of Mana, widely considered then and now as one of the best 16-bit RPGs ever made. Their wait was in vain, though, as 20 years later, Seiken Densetsu 3 remains the only non-mobile game in the Mana series to never be released outside of Japan. Over the years, the vanished game took on a mythical quality, spurred on by a 2000 fan translation patch that allowed gamers to play it in English on emulators. Was it cancelled in favor of the ill-fated Secret of Evermore? Due to a rivalry between the Japanese and American branches of Square? Or, as it turns out, was it much more prosaic—the era of the Super Nintendo was drawing to a close, and sales projections weren't high enough to invest in an expensive translation/programming bug fix just to release the game into the then-niche Western JRPG field. Regardless, it became a right of passage- even xkcd has noted that if you haven't tracked it down, you can't call yourself a real JRPG fan. If only those poor gamers in 1995 could have had this article, now polished up for the 20th anniversary, to know what they were missing. The whole Mana series is a Good Topic, and this article, promoted to GA in Spring 2014, will be the 4th FA in the series, assuming it's as good as the other FAs in the series. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 03:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• No caption for the infobox image?
• The lead states that it was released for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System whilst the infobox states Super Famicom. Is this a VG preference I'm not aware of?
• "Although the game was only published in Japan, Western players have been able to play Seiken Densetsu 3 thanks to an unofficial English fan translation" - the body mentions nothing about western players, only that it was published on the internet? This could be reworded, but feel free to ignore this
• "whichever character is currently selected, the other two companions are controlled by the computer" - how about by artificial intelligence?
• "The remaining three characters act as non-playable characters (NPCs) when encountered" - Non-player character could be linked
• "One type of weapon is available for each character" - are these weapons unique for each character?
• "According to Fehdrau, the game did not tie up any people who would have been involved in a translation of Seiken Densetsu 3;" - I'm not quite sure what this means
• "A second preview in Next Generation in February 1996, now calling the game Secret of Mana 2 as well" - sounds a bit too present tense if it's referring to a 1996 review. Alternately, I would personally remove "as well" because I think it sounds a tad informal
• "Overall, the game is regarded by many as a SNES classic" - 'by many' is a bit vague. I know a lot of FAC reviewers don't like this language (I've had similar experiences in previous FACs), so I feel this could be rephrased to by many critics or something similar?
• "The 1UP.com review agreed" - would 1UP.com reviewer sound more appropriate?

Those were all of the minor prose issues I found during my read-through. I also checked the references and found no paraphrasing issues, otherwise anything I would have spotted would be listed here. All in all this is a great article that displays all traits of the FA criteria. JAGUAR  17:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: replied below

• I typically don't put captions for infobox cover art
• No, the preference is according to WPVG guidelines to always use SNES unless there's a good reason because it gets confusing (like when I then talk about it being one of the best SNES RPGs). Changed to Super Nintendo everywhere.
• Reworded to "English-speaking"
• Done
• Done
• Yes, reworded to make more obvious
• Reworded to clarify
• removed both
• Changed to semicolon to link the sentence more with the cited statements; I don't want to change it to "critics" since the sentence after that is about the GameFAQs reader polls ranking it highly for years.
• Changed there and in a couple other spots where I quote a "review" instead of a reviewer. --PresN 03:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them. I've had another look through the article and everything seems good to me. As before, I couldn't find any issues with the references so I'm willing to support this article. Just one thing, the infobox is appearing much wider (I think due to the inclusion of 'Super Nintendo Entertainment System'), not sure if this is only happening to me because of my wide monitor resolution but I wouldn't worry about it anyway. Nice work with this one! JAGUAR  15:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, looks like the infobox widens itself if the parameter is long (but only if its wikilinked...); corrected. --PresN 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake

I will be coming back for more comments, but some things must be said at once.

• The Wayback Machine archiving of 1UP links no longer work due to robots.txt. You must use WebCite for these pages. I would also recommend looking through for any other links like that.
• GameFAQs, being primarily a user-based website, is classified as an unreliable website. Also, Seiken Densetsu 3 being one of the most searched-for terms on the site seems small recognition compared to other things mentioned there.
• "...such as "Debussian impressionist styles, his own heavy electronic and synth ideas, and even ideas of popular musicians"." - This quote refers to one reviewer, but the sentence infers that it is the opinion of multiple critics. You should either specify that it is one reviewer's description, or remove the quote and put an additional reference at the end of the sentence.
• The image for Hiromichi Tanaka should have a full stop at the end of the sentence. It might also be prudent to add a minor not as to when the picture was taken. The second part is not that important.
• The image for Hiroki Kikuta: not only should you add a full stop within its box, but the image itself has a glaring "Low quality picture" warning message in it, which may impact its usability. Can this be addressed?
• This is purely option, I think, but despite it being stated that the game was not released overseas, I think it would be good to specify that the game's quotes are from a fan translation. As I said, purely optional.
• The "Seiken Densetsu 3 Original Sound Version" has two release dates attached. While this is explained in the text, I think some note of the second date being for a re-release should be present.

What is there is all I could see that stood out. Aside from that, it looks good. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Done
• Removed
• Noted the specific critic; looks like the line was originally just "described as", then JimmyBlackwing added "by critics" in the Secret of Mana FAC, and no one else commented on it.
• It is not a full sentence, so it does not get a full stop; added "in 2007"
• Modified to not be a full sentence, and have the year taken. I higher-res version does not exist; it's a tight crop of [68], and the original was only 640x427. I found a copyrighted one from 2011 on flickr that might be better; I'll ask for a re-license but I usually get a ~30% success rate with that.

• It worked, put in the new photo; it's only slightly higher-res but it's still a net positive. --PresN 22:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• "(fan translation)" added to platform in quote citations
• Done --PresN 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything else outstanding preventing this from moving ahead. I Support its promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire

Mostly looks good, but a few nitpicks.

• Where exactly are these character name translations coming from? Not the Corlett translation, which IIRC used Hawk, Lise, Carlie, Navarre, Rolante, Beast Kingdom, etc. Are these systematic Romanizations of the Japanese names, or are you using a different source? Either way it should probably be referenced somehow.
  • Related, but the article uses both "God Beasts" and "Mana Beasts". Might be best to standardize on one ("God Beasts" I assume?) unless there is actually a distinction.
• "Unlike the previous game, where each spell was improved through use, the effectiveness of spells depends on the magical ability of the character and the element of the spell in relation to the enemy." --> This seems to imply that Secret of Mana didn't have enemy elemental resistances & strengths, which isn't the case. Additionally, while stats ("magical ability of the character") didn't have *much* impact on SoM spell power, they did have some, and anyway this kind of magic-damage-algorithm-comparison is probably too technical for the article even if it was true. I'd just delete the sentence.
• "When in battle mode, the character adds one point to his or her "power gauge" by making an attack which hits a monster. When the gauge is full, special moves can be unleashed, which vary according to the character." --> Seems like excessive detail, too. "Attacking monsters fills a gauge that allows the player to use character-specific special attacks" or the like?
• "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one—a day passes in a number of minutes—but it still affects gameplay in certain ways." --> Is there reason to think that a quickly cycling day cycle wouldn't affect gameplay? These are two separate thoughts. "A week cycles much more quickly than an actual one, with a day passing in a number of minutes. The day affects gameplay blah blah blah..."
• "Kevin (ケヴィン Kevin?) is the inarticulate prince of Ferolia" -> "Inarticulate" isn't the right word, and I'm not sure the current link to speech impediment is right either? Kevin speaks *broken* English in the Corlett translation (although none of the other Beast Kingdom members do). It's much more "English/Japanese as a 2nd language" / "Caveman talk". I have no idea what the original Japanese script did with him, of course, but "inarticulate" would just mean he's not very convincing or charismatic in his speech, not "he uses a very basic and grammatically incorrect style of speech."
• " or the Deathjester and Heath, who has joined forces with him," -> "or Deathjester and a mind-controlled Heath" perhaps?
• "the connections between each title are more abstract than story-based, linked only on the karmic level" --> This is a nonsensical use of "karma", and checking the source, seems a pretty strange summary. Just leave it as "connections between each title are more abstract than them being direct sequels" or the like.
• "so as to gain ultimate power, politically and magically" -> Cut the last three words? And it's mostly magical ultimate power.
• There's an awful lot of detail on Secret of Mana+, which IIRC is mostly SoM remixes and less SD3 tunes (I reserve the right to be totally wrong here). Even if it was a 50/50 split... seems like it'd be worthwhile to trade a sentence on SoM+ for more sentences on the SD3 OST itself, at least if there are any other sources covering the OST to be had. SnowFire (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Responded below:

• They're romanizations of the Japanese names; changed everywhere to use the Corlett version, since that's the most common English one.
  • God Beasts
• Removed the comparison; while the issue would be fixed by saying "only" by the character's magic stat and the element used, the comparison to SoM is too detailed. I do want to keep the idea that the element of the magic matters; the 8 elements (with their stones, elementals, beasts, etc.) are a big part of the background of the game and they don't get a lot of detail here.
• Agreed, done.
• Ended up just cutting the second half of that- no need to state that the day of the week affects gameplay, if the very next sentence discusses exactly how it affects gameplay anyway.
• Can't think of a good replacement word, and as the concept doesn't deserve a big explanation since it doesn't affect gameplay or the plot at all, dropped it
• Hmm, it's a little spoilery- you don't know he's being mind controlled the first time you run into them, right?- and I left out the other twists, like the Darkshine Knight being Duran's father, but changed anyway
• Done.
• Cut.
• Dropped a sentence, but there's not much else to be had for the regular OST.

Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. By the way, just to be clear, I'd have been fine with keeping the straight-up Japanese names too if you'd rather it be that way, just I thought they should be sourced if they did. Regardless, Support. SnowFire (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain1999

Just a few minor things from me:

• Is "(new Square Enix)" in the lead meant to say "(now Square Enix)"?
• "English-speaking players have been able to play Seiken Densetsu 3 thanks to..." I feel like "thanks" is not the most neutral word in this context (perhaps "due to"?). This is just a personal thing though, so no harm if it's kept.
• The first paragraph of "Characters" is unsourced.
• This is just a personal preference, but in "Reception", I'd split the first paragraph into three: the general sentences about the reviews, the graphics, and the music.
• When I write articles, I usually repeat the name of the publication along with the name of the reviewer ("RPGamer '​s Parsons", "Riley of Cubed3", etc.), but I understand that a lot of articles don't use this (and I can see why).

That's all I could see, and most of them are personal preference anyway. Great job with this! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Whoops, that got introduced a couple days ago. Fixed.
• Done.
• As noted in the current thread about in at WT:VG, citations are optional for the plot section, since it's implicitly sourced to the game; I still put in a bunch of quote citations anyways, since I think it's helpful/interesting, but there's no quote-based way to source that part of "Characters". I do have one cite that I can copy to there to cite that the plot follows the main character chosen, though.
• I'd rather not, since it would leave it with three paragraphs of 3, 4, and 2 sentences, which are in my opinion a little short.
• I've done it both ways; it's not a big deal to switch it, especially since such a high fraction of the reviews for this one don't have names to start with. Done.

@Rhain1999: Replied inline. --PresN 17:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes! I understand that citations are optional for the plot section, but if you have a reference (particularly for a "Characters" section, which I think is more important to cite than the "Story" section itself), then it might as well be used, so thanks for that. As far as I can see, there isn't really anything holding this article back, so I'm very happy to support this candidacy. It's a shame there aren't more comments on here (as I'm experiencing myself), but I wish you luck with the rest of this FAC! I'm sure it's very close to promotion, anyway. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review:

• File:Seiken Densetsu 3 Front Cover.jpg is cover art with good rationale, but I recommend using {{Non-free use rationale video game cover}}.
• File:Seiken Densetsu 3 Gameplay.png is a game screenshot with proper rationale, and a helpful caption in the article. That's good.
• File:HiromichiTanaka20070131.jpg and File:Hiroki Kikuta @ MAGFest 9 (crop).jpg are both free images, with proper rationales and relevant captions.

For the sources, I looked at this version, and I checked sources 1, 3–5, 8–9, 32–33, 39–40, 42–49, 51–53, and 55. I only found a few minor problems:

• Source 1 is used to support "as opposed to the three of Secret of Mana", but I couldn't find this in the source.
• Source 3 is used to support the second Gameplay paragraph, yet most of the information from the paragraph isn't present in the source.
• Source 4 is used to support the use of the Mana Stones in the game, as well as the optional second class change at level 38, but the information is absent from the source.
• Source 5 is used to support the statement regarding "Will-o'-the-Wisp the light elemental and Shade the dark elemental", but these are not mentioned in the source.
• Source 33 is archived, but has an error; replace it with this URL.
• Source 46 no longer works; use this instead (minor change to the URL).
• Source 48 is used to support the inclusion of "Where Angels Fear to Tread" in Seiken Densetsu 3, but this is not mentioned in the source.

Everything else looked good. Bonus points for archiving, too. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Changed the rationale template for the cover image
• Added a Secret of Mana source for that fragment
• Got most of it with the other sources, and pulled out a couple minor details I couldn't get explicitly sourced.
• Added another source that covers those specific details
• Missed that, I removed all the other element names before the FAC. Now dropped.
• archiveurl replaced
• Done
• Ah, that was in the other source. Properly cited it, and reworded to more closely match the source.

@Rhain1999: Addressed all of your points! --PresN 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everything! After taking another look at the article, I'm happy to support on images and sources. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Axem Titanium

• God-Beast or God Beast? They're both used. Is there a difference?
• You mention "Duran and Angela" at the beginning of Characters but then talk about Angela first, unlike with the other two pairs.
• Are these names taken from the fan translation? If so, might be worth mentioning somewhere.
• "Altenish" is this an official term? If not, "citadel in/at Altena" is probably less OR.
• Nevarre/Navarre?
• Is it important to specify that Isabella is "Bigieu"? It seems the name only appears once later in the story section, so it's worth considering glossing over this detail for clarity.
• "He shows the king his abilities by forcing Kevin to awaken his werewolf abilities by killing his best friend. When Kevin confronts the Beast King on this act and his plans to invade the human Holy City Wendel, he is thrown out of the kingdom and swears revenge" - tons of he/his pronouns that I can't decipher their antecedents
• " The main character—now including Carlie—on the way to Wendel stay overnight in Astoria where they are woken by a bright light" - subject verb agreement: "The main character [...] stay overnight"?
• "an Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) game"
• You don't need to call out reviewer's affiliation after introducing them, you can just use the last name

Axem Titanium (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: Replied below.

• Darn it, I thought I fixed that before
• Swapped
• Done
• Added a note
• Okay, I really remember fixing those, and I clearly missed a lot
• Now just Isabella
• pronouns reduced
• stays
• a
• I hadn't been, but I literally just added them 4 days ago due to the last reviewer; I think they should stay because half of the reviews don't have a stated reviewer, so it was half publication names and half last names. --PresN 00:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Axem Titanium: Reminding you of this. --PresN 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• All addressed for me. Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- have I missed image and source reviews above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: it wasn't there before, but there is now an image and a source review just above and passed. --PresN 00:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Triturus

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I resubmit this article on the crested and marbled newts after having been unable to respond in time during the first FAC review. I've responded to comments from that archive on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance for reconsidering this one and looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent article. The problems identified in the previous review seem to have been addressed. I am just a tad concerned about the utter lack of references in the lead. People sometimes say the MoS discourages references in the lead, but I've yet to see the specific policy that says so. It's important to remember that some users may only have enough time to read the introduction, but they may still want to know where a specific claim comes from.--Leptictidium (mt) 07:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There seem to be two schools on that. I stick with this essay and think that if references can be left out in the lead, they should be, as they only clutter a section which is supposed to be easily readable, and because "the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort". Every fact in the lead is supported through references later on. Abstracts of scientific papers also usually don't contain references. Tylototriton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I kinda agree, it's just that I wondered whether there was some specific WP guideline involved. So, with that out of the way, I see no reason for this great article not to get FA status.--Leptictidium (mt) 17:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

yeah, I'd leave refs out of lead. Will be along soon to review article. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comments - I'll copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and copyediting! Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Two species of marbled newts and six species of crested newts, formerly considered subspecies, are accepted today - "today" redundant.

Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

when did Triton become Triturus? Straightaway or recently?

It became Triturus when Rafinesque described that genus in 1815. It is possible that the name Triton was still used by others, as it was often the case with scientific names in those days when there were no databases on the internet... I don't think I can make this any clearer? Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Aaah my bad/sorry, I misread it, that's fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

most ponds inhabited by the northern crested newt in the UK today are human-made - "today" redundant

Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In the common characteristics section, I changed one template so that it gives 20cm=8in rather than 20cm=7.9in. There are two other units there that need imperial units, and you might want to think about the other - do you want it to be in fractions of an inch or decimals? because adding "|frac=4" as a parameter to the convert template will do that.

I added the missing imperial units (except in the morphology table), hope I spotted them all (do millimetres need conversion?). Decided to stick with inch decimals rather than fractions, but as I am not used to imperial units, I don't know which is more common/recommended. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't bother with converting mm as too small, I'd think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The northern crested newt and the marbled newt are the only species in the genus with a larger range overlap - "large" not "larger" as there is no comparator...?

Replaced "larger" with "considerable" – I meant larger than the very narrow overlaps between other species. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Tentative supportOtherwise I can see little to complain about. I am not seeing any other clangers prose-wise but will read through again. The external video is sensible...but not sure how it goes with out image/EL policies so will defer to @Nikkimaria: on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears to have been uploaded by the copyright holder, so there's no WP:LINKVIO concerns, and using external media is appropriate where they are not compatibly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The comments I made when this article was previously at FAC have been dealt with satisfactorily. I am now supporting it on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

Thanks for your comments. I've integrated some of your suggestions; will think about the others over the next days when I have some more time... Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "but Linnaeus had already used the name Triton for a genus of sea snails." You could mention when.

Done and original Linnaeus ref added. Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "differences between subspecies were however noted and eventually led to their recognition as true species." Does the source really say "true"? "Full" might be more conventional.

Agree. Replaced with "full" Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "In the southern marbled newt, adults mainly breed" In? Sounds a bit odd.

Reworded to "Southern marbled newts mainly breed..." Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Paedomophic adults, retaining their gills and staying aquatic" Are these able to reproduce or breath air?

They are not able to breathe air but they should be able to reproduce, such as axolotls do, but the source has no info on whether they have actually been observed to do so. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand the structure of the lifecycle sections. What is meant by "phases"? To me, it would mean that there are distinct phases in its life where it is solely aquatic or solely terrestrial as an adult, but that does not seem to be the case? To sum up, it is aquatic as larva, but terrestrial as adult, apart from when it breeds, or how? If so, it is unclear, and I think it might need some restructuring to make more chronological sense.

Well, what characterises these animals is that they are aquatic as well as terrestrial as adults. They have recurrent phases, if you like. What might have caused confusion was the "Lifecycle" title of the section. I've renamed it "Behaviour and Ecology" and made the Reproduction part a separate section. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "They secrete the poison tetrodotoxin from their skin," Doesn't seem to be very effective, with so many predators. What animals are deterred by it?

The study cited only showed that the newts secrete the poison, it didn't test its effectiveness. But even if it's very toxic this doesn't mean it gives 100% protection – even the highly toxic Taricha newts have natural enemies! Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• It might make sense to have the evolution section closer to the Taxonomy and systematics section (or the other way around), as in virtually all other animal articles. I can see why you have placed it near distribution, but it seems rather disjointed now, as if the information stops arbitrarily and starts again by the end of the article.

I moved the phylogeny part to "Evolution". Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Now I'm here, I have a confession to make: as a kid, I caught some crested newts and brought them home, where they soon died. I now realise it was a criminal act... When did it become prohibited in the EU?

The Berne Convention, where the crested and marbled newts are listed, is quite old but was ratified at different dates by its member countries. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Size and colouration (only mentioned for marbled) could be mentioned in the intro.

I only wanted to mention the distinguishing and namesake features – the crest for crested newts and the colour pattern for marbled newts. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

But isn't the colour of the crested newts distinguishing as well, as you say "Crested newts are dark brown, with black spots on the sides"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly less conspicuous than that of the marbled newts. I've added their colour though in the same phrase. Tylototriton (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I'd move the entire Taxonomy and systematics next to the rest of the evolution stuff, but my comments have been addressed, looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

It's really great to see this article here. I must note that the article strikes me as rather cluttered at some text sizes; try zooming in and out and you may see what I mean. Lots of tables, pictures, call-out boxes and so forth; I wonder if some selective rearranging or, dare I say, trimming could help with this. Generally, I wonder if the prose could be a bit cleaner (taxonomy and description in particular- the text further down the article flows well). A few specific comments:

• "This crest gave their English name to the crested newts, in which it can be up to 1.5 cm high (in the northern crested newt) and very jagged." This is a bit clumsy; most obviously, "their English name" cannot be "up to 1.5 cm high".

Reworded this part. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Are you attached to the lack of capital letters in the table? Is there something in the MOS about this?

Did not find anything in the MoS, but everything in the table is in capitals now - does look better. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Overall, the newts usually attain an age of seven to nine years" I think not- that may be the "natural" lifespan, but given the number of eggs, surely most individuals die before reaching maturity.

I've rephrased to make it clear that this is the usual age for adults once the larval and juvenile stages passed. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• "presumably to mimic a prey and lure the female" Can "prey" be used like that? Do you perhaps mean "a prey animal" or something similar?

Changed "prey" to "prey animal". Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• What does "resorb" mean? This strikes me as jargon

I'm not sure how I could say this in more plain language. "Resorb" is also used in the article on metamorphosis, and it has the specific meaning that the tissues are degraded and absorbed - the gills are not simply lost or fall off. Unfortunately, Resorption is a disambiguation page, so a link would not really be helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Two possibilities are defining it in this article (dashes, "ie", brackets- something like that) or linking to an appropriate entry on Wiktionary. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've linked to Wiktionary. Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• The first sentence of "Evolutionary history" has two colons; this is to be avoided. (Also, are you committed to keeping the information on evolutionary history with the distribution? I can see the logic of it, but perhaps it fits more neatly with taxonomic information?)

Fixed the two colons. I've now split off Distribution as a separate section but I prefer to have the taxonomy separated from the evolutionary history (which is not only phylogeny). Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is "distribution modelling" the same as environmental niche modelling? The lead of our article suggests that it might be- if so, a link would be great.

Yes, it's the same. Wasn't aware that there's an article, I've linked and reworded. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting; I don't think that this is far off. Your citation style strikes me as odd, but I've no doubt that you know what you're doing! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've removed some pictures not really necessary and rearranged the remaining ones, should be less cluttered now. Also tried to achieve better flow in the taxonomy and description sections but I think that's about as well as I can do as a non-native speaker - I'm thankful for other suggestions! For the citation style, I just think it's more efficient to give the page numbers directly - I don't need separate "References" and "Cited works" sections this way. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your fixes have really improved the article. I wonder if there is perhaps more taxonomic history than you expand upon? There are a dozen synonyms listed in the taxobox which aren't mentioned in the article proper. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to expand upon regarding the synonyms, it would simply mean listing them - and since we already have that in the taxobox, I don't think we need to duplicate? Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Cautious support; a very readable, well-sourced article. I know/knew very little about newts, so I can't promise I will have caught any errors/omissions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

From delldot ∇.

Beautifully done. I just have a few very nitpicky comments, because I couldn't find anything else to complain about:

• Would this sound better reworded? "white stippling on flanks mostly lacking" to "white stippling on flanks mostly absent" or "mostly lacking white stippling on flanks"
• "...use structures such as logs..." 'structures' is an odd word. How about "the newts hide in logs..." or "use hiding places such as logs..."
• Awkward wording: "Dispersal to new breeding sites occurs mainly through juveniles..." Maybe "Juveniles are the main reason for dispersal to new breeding sites..."
• "In such a posture, the newts typically roll up and secrete a milky substance" - are we to assume that this substance contains the aforementioned toxin?
• I believe "A 24 million year old fossil" should be hyphenated thus: "A 24-million-year-old fossil".
• I think this long sentence should be split: "This concerns especially breeding sites, which are lost through the upscaling and intensification of agriculture, drainage, urban sprawl, artificial flooding regimes (affecting in particular the Danube crested newt), and, mainly in the southern ranges, exploitation of groundwater and decreasing spring rain, possibly caused by global warming."

Overall, really excellent work. delldot ∇. 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Tylototriton just in case you didn't see this. delldot ∇. 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, saw your comments, thanks. Not much time atm; I'll try to be back on the weekend... Tylototriton (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok, no rush at all, take your time. delldot ∇. 16:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC) • Astynax ^talk

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance with his enemies to crush Rosas. This article uses dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one available in any language. Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for its previous FAC; I wasn't catching everything then, but I see that a lot of helpful copyediting has been done, and I'm happier with this version. I can't really comment on questions of tone and NPOV, which I'm not in a position to judge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• ready to Support pending comments from those who know something about the subject. A good read. Are there no depictions in film etc? A character in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories is very clearly based on him in exile - the "Tiger of ..." somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • John, it's good to see you here. I'm afraid we have no Wikipedians with true knowledge of Platine history, except for me and Astynax. About your other comments, Rosas showed up in movies indeed. We left out pop culture facts on purpose, since there are already two articles focused on Rosas' legacy. We kept what was most important, as to maintain the article simple and straight forward. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything on films (which generally should not be referred to as "pop culture") in other articles - where? Even if there is, it should be summarized briefly here. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I couldn't find an equivalent section in other FA biographies, which seems that any mention in movies is optional. Since Rosas's appearances in other media is not vital to his character, I can't see the reason to add something here, especially because it would be pointless to add a line saying "Rosas appeared in X movie". What would that add to the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• There have been several depictions in literature, films and television but almost entirely in Argentine media and much of it unabashedly partisan exploitation feeding on the ongoing historicity problem mentioned in the Legacy section. Although depictions of Rosas in literature and media might be appropriate for some sort of separate list linked to within the article's Legacy section, there is also the problem of finding coverage in reliable historical sources that establish the notability of these and their relevance to political and popular culture. If a RS comes to light that explores how Rosas has been depicted in media then I see no problem of including a mention, but I cannot recall coming across such material. • Astynax ^talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Johnbod: The Sherlock Holmes story is Wisteria Lodge (1927), the second part of which is The Tiger of San Pedro, here for easy reference [69]. Rosas is disguised as "Don Murillo". Conan Doyle would have got the reference from W.H. Hudson. Far Away and Long Ago (Dent:London and Toronto:1918), pages 107-8, here: https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_EF0_AAAAIAAJ#page/n121/mode/2up . Might it worth doing two lines as per "In fiction"? Ttocserp 09:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll support. I think it's pretty good. And I believe you can add my name to Lecen and Astynax to those who have some "knowledge of Platine history" (sorry, had to get that off my chest!). Ttocserp 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Well written article on an important figure in South American history. It covers Rosas extensively and does so in an objective light, on par with the quality of other featured articles, such as Pedro I of Brazil, another of the great articles worked on by Lecen. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not yet supporting Always good to see another piece of work by Lecen. I'm not sure the prose is quite there yet; I've gone through as far as "Apogee and downfall" and picked up some points below:

• It isn't clear who some of the quotes are from; e.g. 'Clemente López de Osornio, "a tough warrior of the Indian frontier who had died weapons in hand defending his southern estate in 1783."' If this is Lynch himself saying it, I'd expect it to be attributed in-line, e.g. "according to the historian John Lynch, "a tough warrior..."". If it is a contemporary quote, from Lynch, then it should be similarly attributed, e.g. "according to XXXX, "a tough warrior...". Ditto "in other words, "unbridled dictatorial powers"" etc.
• "although it is thought that he was barred" - I'd prefer it to say who thinks he was barred, or just say "although he was probably barred" if that doesn't matter.
• "owners of large landholdings (including the Rosas family) provided food, equipment and protection both for themselves and for families living in areas under their control. " - I didn't think the food and equipment made sense in relation to "themselves" - i.e. leave the other families out of it and you'd have "owners of large landholdings provided food, equipment and protection for themselves". It wouldn't make very such sense; who else would provide them with food and equipment?
• "Shaped by the colonial society in which he lived, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority.[11] He was in this way merely a product of his time and not at all unlike the other great landowners in the Río de la Plata region." - this felt overly complex, and the "merely" felt a little condescending. Could it just read : "Like the other great landowners in the region, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority."?
• " and acquired real property in the process. " - "real property" isn't a common phrase for most English readers. Would "real estate", "landholdings" or "lands" be more natural?
• " Rosas, like many landowners... Like many landowners..." - repetitious, and I think the reader has probably got the idea by now!
• "Colorados del Monte" ("Reds of the Mount") - just to check, is "reds of the mount" the standard translation? It read a bit oddly to me.
• "At the end of the conflict, Rosas returned to his estancias with acquired prestige for his military service." - "with acquired prestige" read oddly to me. "having acquired prestige"? "respected for his military service"?
• "He was granted the rank of cavalry colonel " - would "He was promoted to cavalry colonel" be simpler?
• "By 1830, he was the 10th largest landowner in the province of Buenos Aires (in which the city of the same name was located)," - I thought the bits in brackets were superfluous; it would be my initial assumption as to where the province would be!
• "300,000 head of cattle" - would "300,000 cattle" be simpler?
• "with the severe deficits, large public debts and currency devaluation which his government inherited" - can you inherit a devaluation? It's an event, not an object. You could inherit the "impact of a devaluation" though.
• " he improved revenue collection (while not raising taxes)" - the brackets here felt clumsy to me.
• "the government's financial issues" - I think issue is wrong here; for alleviate, I'd recommend "problems"
• "curtailed expenditures." - I'd have gone for "expenditure." in the singular
• "called for the adoption of a Constitution" - why the capitalisation on constitution?
• ""The fine territories, which extend from the Andes to the coast and down to the Magellan Straits are now wide open for our children." - I don't think the linking within the quote complies with the MOS guidance on this.
• "reelection and assumption of dictatorial powers. " - "reassumption", as he'd had them before?
• "The result of the 1833 election was a predictable 99.9% "yes" vote" - would the MOS prefer "percent" rather than "%" in this sort of article?
• "Rosas believed that rigged elections were necessary for political stability" - would "Rosas believed that the manipulation of elections..." be somewhat closer to his actual beliefs?
• "Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." - given that the Jesuits don't in the next sentence, would "Most Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." be more accurate?
• "None of the lands confiscated from Indians and Unitarians were turned over to rural workers (including gauchos)" - the bracketed bit felt clumsy.
• "Rosas was not racially prejudiced. " - this seems a remarkable and quite exceptional statement for the time. Do we really mean he wasn't racially biased at all...?
• "a threat that historians have considered state terrorism." - just to check... do all the cited sources in the reference use the term?
• "His targets were denounced as having ties (real or invented) to Unitarians. " I'd have gone for "His targets were denounced as having ties, sometimes inaccurately to Unitarians."
• "Although a judicial branch still existed in Buenos Aires, " -"a judicial branch" seemed oddly worded to me. "Although courts still existed..."?
• " Terrorism was orchestrated rather than a product of popular zeal, was targeted for effect rather than indiscriminate." - felt repetitious; you've already said this in preceding sentences.
• "the port of the city of Buenos Aires, " - would "the port of Buenos Aires" (the title of the wiki article linked here) be simpler?
• "Rosas either imprisoned or executed the plotters." - unclear if this means we are uncertain what he did, or that he imprisoned some and executed others.
• "In the countryside, estancieros (including a younger brother of Rosas) revolted" - I'd have gone for commas rather than brackets here.
• "Men who tried to escape had their throats cut and their heads put on display." - I'm not sure this makes sense. Why only men who tried to escape?
• "Around 1845, Rosas managed to establish absolute dominance over the region, with no challenges to his authority remaining" - second half of the sentence felt redundant, given the first half.
• "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) since 18 December 1829." > "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) in 18 December 1829." "or "Rosas had been promoted to brigadier general, then the highest rank in the army, in 18 December 1829." (which might flow more easily)
• "which by 1831, following the Federal Pact (and officially from 22 May 1835), " - the brackets felt awkard here
• "claiming that " - "stating that" would be more neutral in tone
• "Rosas was a closeted monarchist, " - "closet monarchist" would be the normal rendering
• " as had been many of his fellow countrymen. " - "had been" or "were"? If the former, the statement seems a bit irrelevant.
• "Nonetheless, in public he claimed that his regime was republican in nature." - "claimed" > "stated", especially since we've just said that we don't know what his actual beliefs were. Hchc2009 (talk)

• It's really good to see you here, Hchc2009. Your suggestions are great and I implemented them all. Just a few notes: 1) I've seen one historian call the "Colorados del Monte" "Red Rangers" and another "Red Soldiers of the Wild Country". There is no standard translation, thus I opted for a literal translation. Anything else would be Original Research, I think. 2) Every single source presented call Rosas' regime an sponsor of "state terrorism". That's why I added so many sources (as I did when I mentioned that he headed a dictatorship): to show that it is the prevalent opinion within historiography. As far as I know, there is no one that says that he was not a dictator nor that his regime did not sponsor state terrorism. 3) John Lynch is the one who says that Rosas was not racist, but later on the book he shows a quote from Rosas himself calling Brazilians blacks "monkeys". I chose to remove the mention of non-racist. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• "some of its territories were separated and became the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay," - would "some of its territories declared independence as Paraguary, Bolivia and Uruguay" be more accurate and possibly simpler? (unless someone externally separated them)
• "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province bound to be reconquered" minor, but "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province that would inevitably be reconquered" would prevent a potential misreading of "bound to" as the reader moves through the sentence.
• " had either collapsed and disappeared" - I wondered if you could lose "and disappeared" here, as collapsed sort of implies it, and it would make the sentence read more simply
• " like Gran Colombia..." - some would argue that "like" isn't strictly correct here, and "such as" would be more appropriate (although in normal writing, no-one would complain!)
• "The undeclared war" - "This undeclared war" might make the paragraph flow more easily.
• "the loss of trade with Buenos Aires did not compensate free navigation with other ports " - I think there's a word missing around "compensate free navigation"
• "He declined to meet with his ministers and relied solely on secretaries who matched his own heavy workload." - I don't think you need the "who matched his own heavy workload" here; it doesn't really fit with the flow of the paragraph or the first half of the sentence.
• "gave aid to the Uruguayan government " - "provided support to"?
• "but could hardly disguise his ambition" - slightly unclear if this means that he did disguise his ambition, or if he didn't. How about "but did not disguise his ambition"?
• "The new Argentine government confiscated all of Rosas properties" - a missing apostrophe after Rosas?
• "More than 30 years later, in 1961, " - I don't think you need both of these as it is close to the previous date (i.e. either go for "More than 30 years later," or "In 1961,"
• "who "have long been fascinated and outraged" by him" - unclear who the quote is from without in-line identification.

• Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've implemented most of your suggestions. A couple seemed to require a bit of response in addition to edits:

• Regarding your first point in the list immediately above: The breakdown of central authority produced a vacuum that took years to sort out. Argentina itself took years to emerge as a nation. I have changed the sentence to read: "The breakup of the old Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata during the 1810s eventually resulted in the emergence of the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay in the northern portion of the Viceroyalty, while its southern territories coalesced into the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata." Getting into the maze of rebellions, competing regional claimants, territorial shifts and factious infighting that took some time to work out would be a fine addition to the current Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata article, but could easily become a distraction here.
• Regarding "hardly disguise his ambition": I am unsure how to reword this one. His ambition was known, but not explicit. Like Caesar refusing the crown but wanting the power at some point, Urquiza did not want to openly advance his ultimate aim, and thus risk alienating some of his allies, while things were still in flux. I have changed to: "Once one of Rosas' most trusted lieutenants, Urquiza now claimed to fight for a constitutional government, although his ambition to become head of state was barely disguised."

I hope these edits make things a bit clearer, though further suggestions are welcome. Thanks for your input. • Astynax ^talk 09:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hchc2009, is there anything still missing that we should improve in the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in replying, happy to now support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising is a sitcom that I enjoyed immensely when it originally aired in the United States on the ABC network back in the early 1970s. Although it has yet to be made available commercially on DVD I have been able to obtain some episodes via a private source. I still think it is a very funny show and would like to see it brought back into circulation. My interest in the series inspired me to learn as much as I can about its history. Thus I have spent the last few years accumulating a large amount of information about the series (mainly vintage newspaper articles). Using this information I re-wrote and greatly expanded this article last year and attempted to elevate it to FA status in January of this year. The article was not promoted despite the support of four people. Since then the article has achieved GA status. I have had several friends (many of whom are published authors) look it over and offer comments to improve it and, just last week, it received a "makeover" by the Guild of Copy Editors.

I am now making another attempt at FA status. If anyone can make suggestions on how to improve this article please feel free to over up any that you have. Also note that some of episodes of Temperatures Rising are available for viewing on YouTube. Take a look and have a few laughs. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: The prose looks fine. I can't fine any other issues. Great job.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

• Four dead links need looking into
  • Three fixed and one deleted.
• Pilato in the bibliography isn't used in the article and should be removed
  • Removed.

- SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (October 16, 2007): I think we can cut the date back to 2007, rather than the full date.

Sorry it's a bit bitty, but I've got a full work schedule at the moment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Cut back to just 2007. Jimknut (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Nice work - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I supported last time. Looking at the later comments on that review I think I understand why that candidacy didn't go through, but this one looks pretty solid to me. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I have gone through the article and its previous archives to see whether or not everything has been resolved. I can't find anything to complain about. Good work. -- Frankie _talk 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Image review
• Way too many fair use images. You could probably get by with File:Temperatures Rising.jpg and maybe File:Temperatures Rising Second Season.jpg, but File:Nancy Fox, circa 1971.jpg just doesn't meet the contextual significance criterion of WP:FUC. Her physical appearance does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and removing it would not be "detrimental to that understanding". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit of a loss to fully understand how a mere three photographs could be construed as "way too many". However, I have removed the portrait of Nancy Fox per your suggestion. The other two show the different cast members of the first and second seasons so I think they're essential to the article. Jimknut (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:FUC if you are not sure how three photographs is too many, particularly the part about "minimal usage" and "contextual significance". Although one is preferable to two, considering the drastic cast change you're illustrating, I am alright with the current selected images.
    • However, it would be best if your fair use rationales could explicitly say why these two images are contextually significant, rather than simply saying "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): The first season cast of Temperatures Rising" and forcing readers to make the connection (i.e. that there was a drastic shift in the cast appearance and composition between seasons, and that this is most easily illustrated visually) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I have revised the fair use descriptions. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Alright. Images are fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- have I missed a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• All the newspaper articles that I used I copied onto Word files. I would be more than happy to send them to you. Jimknut (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a film showcasing the superstar Rajinikanth as a character actor, widely considered his best performance. I have worked on this article for over two years and I feel it is very FAC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• "is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name" - what year did the novel come out, and does it have an article?
• "Although Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali, his affection for his sister and the tragic loss of his arm" - could read as Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the tragic loss of his arm

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2009 Balu Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", which was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions"" - I don't understand how a statement made in 2009 affected his decisions in the film?

I've now written, "In 2009 Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", stating that this was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Because Mahendran had no previous directing experience, Balu Mahendra" - no need to repeat his first name here

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Mahendran agreed on a montage after Babu sang a line or two (much to the actor's disappointment)" - this could work fine without the brackets

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Chettiar was perplexed by the finished film's lack of dialogue (since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer), and did not expect such a visually-rich film" - again, I think this sentence would read smoothly without the brackets. I'm not sure what to recommend, but I feel that this sentence could be rephrased slightly

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Rare for Tamil cinema, Mullum Malarum has no duets" - could read as Mullum Malarum features no duets, which is considered rare in Tamil cinema

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• " Chettiar apologised to Mahendran, offering him a (politely refused) blank cheque, and the director thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"" - a bit choppy. Could read as Upon the film's release, Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, to which he politely refused. The director also thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander" - missing comma; After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "A 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu said that the film" - stated

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil and two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film" - syntax error, should read as Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil, two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film awards

Those were the minor prose issues I came across during my initial read-through of the article. All in all, I think the article is solid and very comprehensive - good factors for a FA. JAGUAR  10:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them Kailash! With all of that out of the way, I'll support this transition from GA to FA. The article is broad, comprehensive and well written. JAGUAR  13:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• Wikilink "winch" for those who might not be familiar with the term.

I have linked it in the lead and plot sections. Anywhere else I should link it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have a simpler word for "Itinerant"?

I found no synonyms on Wiktionary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "won first prize" — "won the first prize".

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan intervened and Balu Mahendra made his debut in Tamil cinema." — Sounds vague. Why did Haasan intervene and what for? For requesting Mahendra to be the cinematographer? If so, then did he make the request to Chettiar or Mahendran?

The source reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I've rephrased it myself for you. Do resolve the other comments and let me know by pinging me.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I like it this way. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film" — "as he hired Mahendran as director due to successful stint as a screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film."

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's about it from me. The article looks good.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for resolving my comments. This article has my support for its transition from GA to FA.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Will look at it tomorrow if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were the initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan recommended Balu Mahendra for the job, which Mahendran accepted, leading to Mahendra making his debut in Tamil cinema.[8][9][10]

Although "

-rep of "although"

Reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Mahendran refused to direct the film if Rajinikanth was not cast,[11] and Chettiar capitulated;[6][5] however, he was still unhappy with the director's decision and called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" every time he visited the set.[15] Ra" -As my good friend Tim riley always says, "however" is rarely needed. The sentence is too long and could be reworded to avoid it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• " Latha said that she was compelled to refuse a part in the film due to scheduling conflicts" -compelled isn't the right word here, what you mean is that "Latha was offered a role in the film but had to it turn down due to other filming commitments".

Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. But I prefer your wording. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "According to Naman Ramachandran's Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography, Umachandran's novel and Mahendran's film metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them.[26] According" -rep of according

It appears to be reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "He also noted that films like Mullum Malarum stereotype the poor as representing all that is pristine and traditional; although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -doesn't quite read well in one sentence. I don't follow what you mean by "although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -Can you reword?

I have merged the sentences. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "with strands of sweetness." -it this a quote, I think it would be best quoted what is said there.

It is a translation. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote it in English and put the original language in a footnote?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• ""A good product needs no publicity, whereas a bad product cannot be pushed in the market however much you publicise it"." -is this supported by ref 50 further down?
• Perhaps you could lose a couple of quotes in the retro views of reception to improve readability and flow
• "The winch in Mullum Malarum prompted director P. V. Prasad to use a winch fo" -no need to repeat, replace winch in second instance with "one"
• "Mullum Malarum appears on several lists of great films. In December 2012, Aishwarya Bhattacharya of Koimoi included the film on her list of "Top 10 Rajinikanth Movies".[73] Daliya Ghose of Bollywood Mantra ranked the film fourth on her list of "Top 10 movies of Rajinikanth"" -mmm it's a bit of an exaggeration in appearing on several lists of great films though as you mostly cite the best films of the actor. It's not as if it is cited among the greatest Tamil or Indian films top 100 or anything. Perhaps reword to something like "The films consistently ranks as one of Rajinikanth's best films in polls."

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very good article, I'll be willing to support once the above are addressed. It could still use a little tightening up in the reception section though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Don't know if you've addressed all points but I think it's nearing the line for FA considering the film industry and time period. It would still benefit from a few more people giving it a read and edit in places perhaps but good enough in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

When did the filming take place? Didn't find details yet. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) In order for this to be comprehensive in coverage, it will need such detail since this is a major aspect of films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) How much did the film gross overall? Unavailable. I guess Indians back then weren't so fussy about fiscal information. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Odd. Box office is a pretty big part of film articles, and it would especially help to demonstrate the claims of commercial success. But back then, a film's commercial success would be measured by the number of days it runs in theatres. And that has been covered here. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Excluding cast member names, the plot is currently 364 words long. It should be 400–700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. I'll try to expand it.Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) It seems redundant to have cast members both in the plot and in a list. If including a cast list, the members need to be referenced; there is nothing in WP:FILMCAST that makes them exempt. Though they have already been sourced in the "casting" section, I don't mind sourcing them again in the "cast" section. But there are other cast members who I have not included in the article due to lack of reliable sources, though they appear in the film's opening credits. Can I use that as a source here? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, can I use the opening credits of the film as a source here, to add the other cast members? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Fine with me. Just remove cast members from the plot section to avoid redundancy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Tragic" in "tragic loss" is not neutral. I never added that term. Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Done. Removed "tragic". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Are "BehindWoods" or "Bollywood Life" reliable? The former, yes. The latter, though owned by Zee Network, does not typically qualify as RS. It does conduct exclusive interviews though, and this is one example. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Twitter and WordPress are discouraged as references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) But the accounts are of Mohan V. Raman and Baradwaj Rangan, both are noted journalists here. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Even so, I'd recommend using something else if possible. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: In Baradwaj Rangan's wordpress URL, it states "Copyright 2005 @ Man's World" in the end of the article. Man's World directs to Man's World (magazine). So I've added it to the citation.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Sounds good. Lemme know when all of my points are fulfilled. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Please see how the article is now. Suggest improvements if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I currently count 399 words (less than the recommended 400–700) in the plot section, and there's still no time frame for when filming took place. At the very least include a year for filming. If possible, include months as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I know a film historian named G. Dhananjayan whose email ID I have. I guess I'll ask him if he has any info on this. But does the plot need anymore c/e now? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Plot is fine now. Just get a time range for filming and we're good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I concede. Though I got hold of the director's memoir on the film's making, he has not mentioned any filming dates in it (though Danny states in his books that the film was shot in Sringeri, Ooty, Kundha and Chennai in about 30 days, which I have added). What to do? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Very strange. I would definitely add to the time range you did get into the lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Added it to lead myself. Kailash29792, there are some citations with "Check |archiveurl= value" problems. The Hindu also needs to be italicized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Thanks Snuggums. This was the reason my activity here reduced in the past several days. BTW, how do I fix the "help" tags that appear on the URLs? I don't know what is wrong with them. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Neither do I, they seem correctly formatted when I preview with edit mode :/. I've posted a notice here asking for assistance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now that all the citations are fixed, I shall support this nomination. However, if you do come across a time range for when filming took place, by all means include it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Krish

• Support : Just read the article, and found nothing questionable. The article is well-written, and definitely meets the FA criteria. Plus this was very informative for me, someone who barely watch old films.Krish | Talk 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3

Sorry for taking so long to do this! When reading my comments, please bear in mind that I have very limited knowledge of Tamil cinema.

Production

• Since Umachandran does not have an article of their own, I think it would be helpful to give some information about them. Did they specialize in a specific genre of literature, were they well-known... ?

I wish someone would develop an article on him. But I know not much. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Same with Venu Chettiar; was he a well-known producer, what types of films did he produce, was this his first production...?

Repeat above. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that he was not even mentioned in the title credits, I think the bit about Chettiar (in the lead) needs to be trimmed. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think "Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm." should be moved to the beginning of the previous para. E.g. "won the first prize in Kalki‍ '​s Novel Short Story Competition celebrating the magazine's 1966 silver jubilee. Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm, and decided to adapt it into a film. He outlined..."

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why was Mahendran so insistent that Rajinikanth be cast in the lead role?

I don't know. This may have some info though. Vensatry, it's hard for me to read Tamil (I can read, but, its hard). Can you read and tell me if it has the info you recall? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that they both became friends during the making of Aadu Puli Attam, where Mahendran worked as a dialogue writer. Can't recall the source though. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done: I have written the reason. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Mahendran decided to characterise Manga as a "foodie who loves fish" when he saw the location's marine environment." — I think this is the first time in the article that it's mentioned that the film takes place in a location close to the sea, so this sentence is a bit confusing.

The source reads, "For the Rajnikanth starrer Mullum Malarum, which we shot at Sringeri in Karnataka, I decided on the characterisation of Fatapat Jayalakshmi( she plays Manga, Rajnikanth’s wife in the film). She is a foodie who loves fish. This came to me after I observed how there were water bodies and fish everywhere on the location! The song ‘Nitham Nitham Nellu Choru’ enhanced her character." Can it be reworded in a better manner? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe mention in the beginning of the sentence that they had chosen to Sringeri, a town with a river running through and a lively fishing industry, as a filming location and got the idea that this character would be a foodie from that? -THS

*Why were all these different actors cast? Even if you can't find information on the specific reasons for their casting in this project, it might be worth mentioning if they were already big stars or had only just begun their careers; if they were usually cast in roles like the ones they had in this film, etc.

I don't know.

• "The film intentionally defied traditional Tamil cinema conventions..." I would mention some of these conventions, as the reader of the article might not be familiar with Tamil cinema.

*"thought it was like "watching two drunken monkeys dancing"." Needs citation.

This is already used. Guess I'll reuse it, though it may become WP:CITEKILL. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a straight quote though, so it needs to be cited. -THS

• "Although Chettiar held up production by not financing a crucial lead scene before the song "Senthazham Poovil" with Sarath Babu and Shoba, Haasan funded the scene." — Why did he hold up the production?

I guess he did not want the film to go beyond budget. Or it must have been due to differences between him and Mahendran. Or both. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's what the sources say, then you should include it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• You mention that the film was unusually "visually rich" given that Mahendran was a dialogue writer — I'd like to hear more about the specific cinematographic motifs, styles, etc. that were used instead of dialogue. Did the filmmakers refer to any films as inspiration for this film?

The "Legacy" section mentions, "Discarding traditional melodrama, fights, duet songs and extensive dialogue, the film focused on visual realism", with a source. I guess I need not say more. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was that it would improve the article to explain what you mean by 'visual realism'. At the moment all I know about this film is that it didn't use extensive dialogue, fight scenes, or duet songs; there's little information on the types of effects and motifs the film uses to tell the story instead. 'Realism' is a very broad term, so it's not immediately clear what you mean by it – this is why you should mention specific techniques and motifs that the filmmakers used. For example, filmmakers striving to create a sense of the 'ordinary life' often choose colours and saturation that makes the film look bland in contrast to the vivid colours of Technicolor fantasy films; they might film with a handheld camera in order to give the film a more realistic, spontaneous style; they might prefer to film on location rather than on a sound stage...TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

TrueHeartSusie3, I got something (translated from Mahendran's book): "I was writing the screenplay as if I was writing a personal diary about my thoughts. I knew very well no producer would like it because it did not have the usual melodrama, overacting, lengthy dialogues, duet and routine climax. In other words it did not have any of the commercial formula which I successfully handled in my story-dialogue till then. It happened exactly as I thought." I guess he is saying that he took inspiration from nothing and that visual realism was his own idea. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think adding that quote could work, but what I meant is that you need to explain what visual realism means in this film's case. For example, if you look at "Themes and analysis" in American Beauty (1999 film), you'll find paragraphs like this: "Mendes called American Beauty a rites of passage film about imprisonment and escape from imprisonment. The monotony of Lester's existence is established through his gray, nondescript workplace and characterless clothing. In these scenes, he is often framed as if trapped, "reiterating rituals that hardly please him". He masturbates in the confines of his shower; the shower stall evokes a jail cell and the shot is the first of many where Lester is confined behind bars or within frames, such as when he is reflected behind columns of numbers on a computer monitor, "confined [and] nearly crossed out"". In other words, we not only get to know that Mendes wanted to portray Lester as a man trapped in his middle class life, but we're given examples of how they used film as a medium to express this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"Themes

• I don't understand what you mean by this: "that although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness". Do you mean that the filmmakers omit any criticism of 'real' poverty and the system which has produced it, instead making a statement that the poor can be "rich in moral uprightness" though not in a material way? I would rephrase this so that it's clearer.

The author S. Rajanayagam states, "In such films, the poor are glamourised, and stereotyped as representing all that is pristine and traditional. The overall socio-economic system, which has made them poor, is unchallenged. Within the system, however, the hero will be 'richer' in terms of his moral uprightness." Does it solve anything? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be better to include that quote. EDIT: even if you don't add the quote, you will need to paraphrase it. At the moment, you've included significant sections of his statements word for word, but without quote marks. –THS

I have included the quote as it is and put it within quotation marks. Anyone may paraphrase it to the best. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In one scene, after he violently berates her during the day, he puts henna on her feet at night while she is asleep." What's the significance of putting henna on her feet? This is not clear for someone ignorant about Tamil culture.

I guess he was trying to be kind to her. In fact, women here (in India) love applying henna on their hands and feet. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe add something like "he tries to show his affection for her by putting henna..." But since it doesn't seem that henna is in any way symbolic, but simply a beauty practice that he wants to do to show his affection, I don't think it is actually that important to clarify it; I initially thought it might have some kind of more important meaning at first! -THS

• "Mullum Malarum explores the theme of egotism, with Kali, the community's alpha male, surrounded by sycophants who massage his ego." According to whom?

Naman Ramachandran. I don't wish to overuse the line "according to", so please suggest something else. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless its a general fact that MM is about egotism, you need to attribute it. However, you don't have to go with 'according to' every time; how about "NR states that..." or "NR regards egotism as one of the central themes in MM." ? -THS

Done: I have mentioned Ramachandran at the beginning of the sentence. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Release and reception

• "there were problems with its release. After Haasan's intervention..." What were the problems? Also, I think you could give Haasan's full name and profession here again, I had completely forgotten who he is. Also, how did he intervene?

This source reads, "When Rajnikanth’s yesteryear classic ‘Mullum Malarum’ had some problem in getting released. Kamal Haasan sorted out the issues and got the film released". Should that solve anything? BTW, Kamal Haasan has already been introduced in "Production". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If we don't know what the problems were, then it's fine not to alter that bit. I know Haasan was mentioned before, but it's worth mentioning his name and profession again, because it's confusing if the reader has to go back and forth. Remember that the reader of this article may not have heard of any of these people before, therefore we shouldn't assume that they'll be able to remember every name, especially if they've only been mentioned once before. -THS

We should either use 'Kamal' or 'Kamal Haasan'. Nobody calls him 'Haasan' (except for a few presses in North India). —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The film's commercial performance during its first few weeks was poor." Why?

• In the sections on reviews and legacy, you sometimes write simply "X stated..."; given how few of the critics have Wikipedia articles, I think it would be helpful to mention whether they are film critics, film scholars, filmmakers, etc. For example, I have no idea who Baradwaj Rangan is and why I should think his/her opinion is notable enough to be included.

Did you read the section "Music"? Baradwaj Rangan has been introduced and wikilinked there. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I did, but again, you cannot expect your readers to be able to remember every name. You can expect them to remember all the main people involved in this film (e.g. lead actors, screenwriter, director, producer), but if someone has been mentioned only once, chances are the reader doesn't remember them and will be confused. -THS

Legacy

• "There might be very few or even no movie that revolves mainly the brother-sister relationship." Is there a word missing here?

I don't know. Should I add sic? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker though, so you might want to check with someone else before adding sic. -THS

• I think this section would be easier to take in if you began each paragraph with a description of what the para is about. E.g. if you are going to discuss the ways in which specific filmmakers have been influenced by the film, begin the paragraph with "Several filmmakers have credited Mullum Malarum as inspiration for their works.".
• In general I think this section might need to be restructured. For example, in para #3, you begin by listing praise from others, and then in the middle of the para mention that the film was the basis for a tv show. I don't understand the connection between the praise and the tv show.

Agree with THS. The TV show is totally unrelated (except for the name) to the film and is trivial. Ditto with Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed info about the TV show. But the line Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi is a pun on one of MM's dialogues. So I thought it could stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's a pun, it would be helpful to have a footnote with English translations of the titles and an explanation of the pun, if appropriate. -Susie

• If several filmmakers have simply said that MM inspired them to become filmmakers, I think you could synthesize by saying "XYZ have stated that Mullum Malarum inspired them to become filmmakers" instead of including very similar quotes from all of them.
• "G. Dhananjayan wrote that it is one of five films the actor considers "close to his heart"; the other four are Bhuvana Oru Kelvi Kuri (1977), Aarilirunthu Arubathu Varai (1979), Enkeyo Ketta Kural (1982) and Sri Raghavendrar (1985)" I don't think you need to mention the other films.

Not mentioning the other four would create vagueness, so I mentioned them. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe move them to a footnote? -THS

Yes, a FN would do. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done: Added footnote. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "However, when his script for Azhagiya Kuyilae had no takers he directed the big-budget Gentleman (1993) and never got to make the small-budget film." What's the relevance of this fact to this article?I also don't think this should be included: "In January 2011 Rajinikanth saw Aadukalam, starring his son-in-law Dhanush. Impressed with his performance, he said: "This film will take Dhanush to the next level just like what Mullum Malarum did to me";[95] Dhanush's performance earned him the National Film Award for Best Actor." Same for the playback singer's opinion.

Yes, the bit about Aadukalam is WP:UNDUE. Also, Suchitra's quote contains this factually incorrect claim (I understand that's her opinion though): 'though it was only his third film'. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How much of info from the Shankar interview do I keep? BTW, I've removed the information on Suchitra and Dhanush. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any need to include anything beyond a mention that MM inspired him to become a filmmaker. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Shankar has stated, "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". How do I paraphrase this? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still ok to just state that MM was one of the films which inspired Shankar to become a filmmaker. He has his own article, the rest should be discussed there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• In general, this section has too little information on MM's place in film history, and too much praise that is not very informative on why it deserves this praise. After reading it, I know that this film is considered a classic, but I am not sure why, beyond the fact that it was more visual than previous Tamil films and portrayed sibling relationships in a realistic way.

Overall, I think this is an interesting article close to becoming a FA. I understand that some of my points might be impossible to address due to lack of available information. When polishing the article, remember that its readers might have very little previous information of Tamil film history. Hope this is helpful! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I'm liking the improvements so far! I don't know if you'll find this helpful, but whenever I'm writing a "Legacy" section, I'll try to keep in mind the question "How would film history be different if this film had not been made?" This helps in focusing on the reasons why a film is notable, without giving undue weight to people simply saying that it's notable.

Unfortunately, I've spotted several issues in "Themes"; you need to add quotation marks to direct quotes, or (preferable in most cases) paraphrase them. For example, the following seem to be direct quotes but have not been attributed as such:

• " to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them"
• "an angry young man with a kind heart"
• "the Oedipal possessiveness by a married brother of his younger sister"
• "massage his ego"
• "presentable and educated"
• "authoritarian yoke"

In general, I think you might want to reword most of the material relating to Ramachandran's statements – just replacing couple of words but keeping the overall structure of a sentence is not a good way to paraphrase. E.g. you write "As a subordinate, Kali cannot oppose Kumaran; his frustration threatens to erupt several times", and Ramachandran writes in his book "Being a subordinate, Kaali cannot really oppose him in any way and his frustration threatens to bubble over several times..." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Comments from Vensatry

Oppose on sourcing

• The article extensively makes use of two books written by G. Dhananjayan—The Best of Tamil Cinema, 1931 to 2010: 1977–2010 and Pride of Tamil Cinema: 1931 to 2013. Although the latter had won a special mention at the 62nd National Film Awards, it looks like a WP:MIRROR, as the book paraphrases stuff from Wikipedia articles and the NFA archives of Directorate of Film Festivals. Since the article relies heavily on these two books, I'm opposing it momentarily. That said, I'm also concerned about the reliability of the following sources: Oneindia, Behindwoods, Raaga.com, VUIN.com, APTalkies.com, india-seminar.com (I know this is from BR), Bollywood Mantra, and Sify (I'm not sure if it's acceptable in FAs). —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed Oneindia, Raaga, APTalkies, Bollywood Mantra and VUIN, even though the VUIN article's title reads, "A VUIN Exclusive". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Vensatry, are you opposing the usage of Sify in articles like this because it is an online source with no print edition? Because you see other web-only sources like Behindwoods, Koimoi, IndiaGlitz, etc. in the same perspective. In fact, Behindwoods have gained remarkable media coverage through their "Gold Medal" ceremonies, and have no reputation for giving false info. And while both Danny's books do contain considerable plagiarism from us (I feel his National Award should be revoked for this), the Mullum Malarum chapters in both of them contain none. I'll even send you the pages for proof. Should that mean that the books can still be used here as sources? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the existing FAs (except your articles) use the aforesaid sources. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – For those references with Tamil title, please include the English title in the trans_title parameter so that its possible for English readers to know what the reference subject is about. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Yashthepunisher

• Budget and Box-office information should be mentioned in the infobox.

Unavailable; I guess Indians back then weren't so fussy about fiscal information on films. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Its personal, but you might wanna replace some convoluted words like "tumultuous" and "tepid" with something more formal.
• Mention the names who have played "Kali" and "Kumaran" in bracket during plot synopsis.

I actually removed it on another editor's suggestion to avoid WP:OVERLINK. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• Following sources are doubtful as WP:RS: bollywoodlife.com, behindwoods.com, Lokvani.com, and tamilcinemamusic.com. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Behindwoods is a reliable source; it was accepted during Enthiran '​s FAC. Bollywood Life contains an exclusive interview (I don't know what to do in this case), tamilcinemamusic.com contains an old review of the film by Ananda Vikatan. I don't know what's wrong with Lokvani. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Behindwoods was never discussed in either of the FACs of Enthiran. But i see that its extensively used as a source. And i also see that it was a promotional partner of the film and with such a COI it should not have been used there in the first place. Anyways, arguing that its used there and hence its RS is just OSE. Publishing "exclusive interview" doesn't make them reliable. That way I could catch hold of a minor regional celebrity in a market, ask them some questions and make my blog RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood Life has been removed now. As for Behindwoods, what do I do to prove its reliability? Ssven2, I bet you can rework the Enthiran magic here (i.e., how you succeeded in using Behindwoods as a source there). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania)

Nominator(s): Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While there are several railway station FA's (mostly British), there isn't one from the US, only a handful of GA's. Wasn't sure there would've been enough for an FA when I started, but was surprised by Union Station's unique, and often overlooked, history as well as how it went from neglected and abandoned to being revitalized and a hub of activity. This article has previously been reviewed by Finetooth and West Virginian who were instrumental in helping to get the article ready for FAC. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Erie_PA_Panorama_c1912_LOC_6a14402u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourced from the Library of Congress who indicate that it's original copyright was to Haines Photo Co. in 1912. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but the tag you're currently using is intended for images published, not just taken, before 1923 - do we know whether the company published the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Must have been...it is listed in the 1912 Catalog of Copyright Entries as "Erie, Pa. two panoramic views. © Sept. 18, 1912." [70] (page 20049, if you're interested). Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, then just add that detail to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Added, thanks for doing the image review. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginia

Support As Niagara has stated above in his nomination of the article, I've already engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review at this article's peer review. All my comments and suggestions were addressed there. I still assess that this article easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria because it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, and has a lede that adheres to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Once again Niagara, you've done a splendid job illustrating the storied past and revival of this historic building. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth

I peer-reviewed this article in August 2015 and did some minor copy editing, and all of my original concerns have been addressed. I'm leaning toward support, but after re-reading the revised article again today, I have two (or several, depending how you count) additional suggestions:

• I see four sentences in the article that appear as unsourced last-sentence additions to paragraphs. The first of these (Fellheimer) is at the end of the first paragraph of the "Design" section, and the second (railroad offices) ends the third paragraph of the "Design" section. The other two are in the "Operations" section, at the ends of paragraphs 2 and 3 (express trains and Bliley). Can you add reliable sources for these claims?

• For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in the Harriet Tubman bibliography. You can generally find these via WorldCat. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of History of Erie County, Pennsylvania as 8622308 here. Readers who use your bibliography will then be able to click on an OCLC link to see the WorldCat listings, which include information about other editions and formats and where to find them. For example, the History of Erie County, Pennsylvania, has appeared in nine different forms, including a 2006 reprint. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Added the appropriate sources and OCLC numbers. Thanks for catching those! Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Support. A very well-done and interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley

• "The first railroad station in Erie was established 1851" Is "established 1851" AmerEng? I would say "built in 1851".

Missing preposition, should read "established in 1851". Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Superintendents for both the New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads, as well as other railroad officials, retained offices on the second floor of Union Station." "retained" does not sound right to me - maybe "had"?

Replaced. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• " early-1960s" Why the hyphen?

My thinking was along the lines of MOS:DECADE which specifies that prefixes for decades like "mid-" or "pre-" should have hyphens. If I'm misinterpreting it, let me know and I'll remove the hyphen. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• "the Philadelphia and Erie continued to maintain its original station on State Street" You refer to this as if you have already mentioned it.

Changed to avoid making the reference. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Lake Shore '​s demise.[43][44] Erie remained devoid of any passenger rail service until the Lake Shore Limited was introduced on November 30, 1975" This is a bit confusing. How about something like "until November 30, 1975, when service was restored, named Lake Shore Limited after its predecessor."

Changed, but actually named for the original, New York Central train. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Train arrival times - I think they are too detailed for an encyclopedia article as they will be subject to frequent change.

It was suggested in the peer review that they be added. I could be less specific and just say "early morning" if that's any better. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Personally I disagree with the PR comment. You provide a link for the times. However, if you added "As of December 2015" and deleted the actual times that would be a compromise. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• The microbrewery details are excessive and verge on advertising.

Obviously I'm better at historical and architectural/engineering writing than about businesses; I'll work to tone it down. If you have suggestions on what is the most egregious, I'll have a better idea of what needs to be changed or removed. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at it again, the same comment applies to Logistics Plus. I do not think that details about commercial tenants belong in an article about a railway station. If any are significant enough to have its own article you can wikilink it. I suggest instead of one section on "Major tenants", two sections headed "Railway services" and "Commercial tenants". In the latter you could list them in one paragraph, with maybe a sentence about the most important ones. You might also change "art gallery" to "art studio" as it is a commercial business rather than a public gallery. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, I've cutback on extraneous details. I've also retitled the rail section "Services and facilities", which appears in other Amtrak station articles, and decided to reorder the sections for a more logical progression. Did I miss anything? Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• No change needed, but there has been a dramatic revival of passenger numbers in Britain. I assume from this article that there has been no US revival?

When oil prices were high, Amtrak ridership did increase and had a record ridership of 30 million in 2013. But, outside of the California and the Northeast Corridor, driving and (as is often the case) flying is faster. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• A first rate article. All points are minor apart from advertising for the brewery. Dudley Miles (talk)

Yugoslav monitor Sava

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Another in my series of Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslav river monitors. As the Austro-Hungarian Temes-class monitor Bodrog, she fired the first shots of World War I. She then went on to serve in three more navies under the name Sava, being scuttled and raised twice. She still exists, although she has been reduced from her former glory and is now an ammunition barge! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Map labels aren't very legible - suggest scaling up
• File:Dunarea_romaneasca.png: what is the source of the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikki, I'll make inquiries. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It appears the creating editor (on Ro WP) hasn't edited since 2013. Does that mean I should ditch it, Nikki? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
      • If you can find sourcing that supports the data presented, that would also work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• No issues with expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Lede is rather a bit too detailed, IMO and could stand to be more of a summary.
• Add a link to the knots conversion template by adding "|lk=in" both in the infobox and the main body.
• Her armour consisted of belt, bulkheads and gun turrets 40 mm (1.6 in) thick and deck armour 25 mm (0.98 in) thick, and her conning tower was 75 mm (3.0 in) thick. A few too many "and"s here.
• Link mine, launched, lighter, tug, patrol boat, minelayer, division (naval).
• Any information on her pre-WWI activities?
• How's your German? Die österreichisch-ungarische Donauflotille im weltkriege, 1914-18; dem werke "Österreich-Ungarns seekrieg, 1914-18" by Olaf Richard Wulff; Hans Hugo Sokol; Gábor von Döbrentei ought to be useful.
• Commencing on 30 October 1915, they escorted a series of munitions convoys down the Danube to Lom where they were transferred to the Bulgarian railway system for shipment to the Ottoman Empire. The antecedent for the second "they" is unclear as the monitors certainly weren't transferred to the RR system.
• Under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Bodrog was transferred to the KSCS along with a range of other vessels, including three other river monitors,[18] but was officially handed over to the KSCS Navy and renamed Sava in 1920. Why a "but" here?
• Armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels, started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups. Who started?
• Sava was raised and repaired by the navy of the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, and served under that name alongside her fellow monitor Morava, which was raised, repaired and renamed Bosna. Missing a comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Sturm. I have addressed all your comments (these are my edits), and trimmed the lead a bit. My German is basic (I lived there for two years twenty years ago...), and I have checked uni and other accessible libraries and none have a copy of Wulff et al, so I'm stuck with what I have in that respect. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I am currently adding some details to the article from Pawlik, Christ and Winkler (thanks Sturm), will ping when I'm done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I have completed expanding the article using the above reference, which has resulted in the addition of quite a bit of material to the WWI section in particular. These are my edits. I believe it is appropriate to ping all the reviewers (Dank, Nikkimaria, Sturmvogel 66 and 23 editor) to check that they are still happy with their support or review post-expansion. Thanks to everyone for their patience. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Not necesssary ... if Sturm likes the changes, he'll support, and that support will cover prose as well. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
            • I made a couple of tweaks, including one where I took out a conversion because you only need to convert a measurement on first use; see if they suit. I like how you were able to expand the WWI coverage, but I think that the lack of coverage of this ship's peacetime history need to remedied before it fulfills FAC's completeness criteria. I won't oppose it, because I think that it otherwise meets the criteria, but I think that you're hosed here for lack of available information to fill in the gaps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Support I've been copy editing this article on and off for the last two years and feel that it meets the criteria by all means. These are my edits. 23 editor (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article at the ACR and my few concerns were addressed there (though I'm a little disappointed to see the map had to go). I don't see any issues with the material added since my review. Great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Palmyra

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. This is the second nomination following a previous one that spent a month without any input by other users save for the Image review. The article is a GA, recieved a Peer review and a copy-edit. Plus, it was translated to Portuguese and Afrikaans and it is now a featured article in Portoguese, Afrikaans and Azerbijani Wikipedia pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira.

Palmyra was a unique city and a melting pot between the East and the West. Its warrior queen Zenobia left a lasting romantic impression in the minds of classical writers and its ruins are (were) one of the best preserved from the Roman era. Sadly, a monstrous militia (ISIS) is destroying it piece by piece.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Now Support, as points fixed - Fine Work! Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• It's a pity such a fine, and (sadly) topical, article received no comments last time! By the way, this got 256K desktop views in the last 90 days. I have I think edited it a few times. On a first look:
• Lead: I might shorten para 3, but include a link to the short-lived Palmyrene Empire. No need to drop the next one.
• Sections: My main comment is that the sequence of the sections, though in the conventional WP order, does not serve this subject, treated at this length, at all well for most readers. They mainly want information on the ruins, their recent destruction, and the culture that produced them. At the moment the main "Notable structures" section begins on the 16th screen down on my computer, which is just far too low.
  • Taking them in turn:

Location and etymology - I'd split this, & put etymology at the end of the article. I'd add the "City layout", now many screens lower, to the current 1st para on "Location".

History - very long, and not the priority for most readers. Move lower. You might even split the section, keeping the pre-Muslim history higher, but the commendably full subsequent history much lower, as until ISIS this contributes very little to the fame of the city.

"People, language and society" then "Culture" - ok to follow location and layout. I'd then have "8.2 Cemeteries and 8.3 Notable structures " next, with the ISIS destruction just after. Excavations might go into the history section.

Government, Religion and Economy next, but the rulers table right at the bottom of the article. I even wonder if all the redlinked Al-Fadl dynasty should not be moved out to a dedicated list page. If that is done the House of Odaenathus might go below the relevant section in the history.

• If not this, then something else needs to be done.

Thanks for taking the effort. I dont mind the rearranging of the sections but would like propose a similar arrangement. The etymology section (as I've seen in most articles) is always at the beginning. It is just too out of place to have it at the very end.

Para 3 of the lead is the shortest and probably summaries the reason why Palmyra is famous : Odaenathus wars and the rebellion of Zenobia. I feel strongly that it should remain.

I made the changes you asked but kept the etymology up. Im thinking about creating an article for the list of rulers. Hope this is adequate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I think that's much better! The removal of the rulers reduces the crude size somewhat, to 177K, which is a good thing also. I'll do a detailed read-through, but not today. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this will have to wait for a few days. I am likely to support, & I'd encourage you to stick with the process, tedious though the referencing issues are. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• I've done some small copyedits for language. In the notes, I can't be bothered to hunt these down:
• Palmyra as a polis is not extensive, and the earliest known reference is an inscription dated to 51 AD, written in Palmyrene and Greek, mentioning the "City of the Palmyrenes" in its Greeks section.
• No evidence for Germanicus visiting Palmyra exist.
• Although a mainstream view is that Palmyra benefited from Petra annexation,
• The Mesopotamian Jewish population was deemed by the Palmyrenes as loyal to the Persians. - "regarded" better than deemed.
• Richard Stoneman propose that the law regulated taxes imposed on goods destined
• Let me know if the problems with these aren't obvious. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Will support when remaining points sorted. Excellent article! Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Beginning, as is my custom here, by examining references and reference formatting:

• Right off the bat, I have to note that you're doing some very nonstandard things with your reference formatting. In particular, I'm not certain what criteria you're using to include books in the bibliography; there are a considerable number of book-format works referenced but not included therein. Also, while things like sfn aren't required, there's no connect between the citations and bibliography entries. The net result makes it rather difficult to evaluate the referencing properly. Considerable editorial discretion is given to reference format choices, but this may actually rise to the level of MOS-noncompliance.
• You format author names first last in citations but last, first in the bibliography. Regardless of choices within editorial discretion, you need to be consistent about the standards you enact.
• As an apparent consequence of the referencing formatting choices, print sources that appear in the citations but not in the bibliography do not have a full bibliographic entry anywhere in the article. Murtonen 1989, for example, lacks a publisher or ISBN. Charnock 1859 lacks a publisher (and, ideally, an OCLC). And so on.
• In what is currently citation 1, you italicize and wikilink CBS News. In citation 11, you do neither for BBC News. Italicization of web sources is a contentious topic in the MOS at this time, but here, especially, consistency needs to be applied.
• You've fallen prey to what I'm increasingly deeming the "Google Books trap". Google Books does a terrible job at extracting bibliographic information from scholarly journals that it has indexed as if they were books. The material you have cited as "Space archaeology" by Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū Sentā isn't a book at all, but a journal: Silk Roadology, the published proceedings of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. I don't have access to this material, so I can't even try to construct a proper citation, which would need the article title, author, and pagination, in addition to the volume (and issue, if assigned) of the journal. None of which can Google Books be trusted to accurately provide. I offer no opinion as to the reliability or academic rigor of this source at this time.

• The same is true of Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. This is actually material from Les Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes, a journal published by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums. I'm not convinced this was an Arabic-language publication, either (or, alternatively, that the cited volume is incorrect). I know that AAAS changed publication language several times, and relatively recent volumes exist in both Arabic and English, but as of volume 42, may have still been in French. Regardless, whatever is being cited here needs confirmation from a more accurate source.

• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is a scholarly article republished in a book-form journal proceeding. This one does appear in the bibliography, but isn't formatted appropriately in either location. Among other issues, it needs to include the editors of the bound work.

At this point, I'm done attempting a thorough survey of the sources. Many, perhaps most of the sources used here lack a complete citation. At least two, and likely more, are cited in a factually incorrect manner because of mangling by Google Books. That is especially problematic for obscure and foreign-language sources as used here. Accordingly, I have no choice but to strongly oppose promotion on 2c and probably 1c grounds. No opinion on prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OH WOW , strong oppose because of this!!!!!!!!!!!! imagine if the article lacked some sources, whats then ? delete the article ?!!!. I didnt expect that FA was a process to see if the sources are neat, tidy and packed in a pretty way. I thought this was about articles being informative and cited. This is a very shallow criteria to oppose !!! its not because the article isnt sourced but because the sources change the style of naming the authors !!!! Does it really matter to the reader !!!! He can click on the link and the book and page will appear in front of him, is he really going to care that the name order is changed between the cite and the biblio !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont think that the reader immediately jump in excitement to the bibliography section once they have clicked on the article. So it doesnt matter using the most reliable academic sources or comprehensiveness but the way the name of the author is given in the citation and the bibliography or the italicization of BBC and CNN!

Now, to tackle your issues :

• I know for sure that I have the privilege of choosing my style of citation and since I've chosen a way that doesn't require a bibliography (templates) then I've decided to delete the bibliography all together
• I provided every citation with full information to compensate the deletion of the bibliography so now every source have a complete citation.
• As for the journals, they are now in an adequate format : (cite journal). So Space Archaeology is properly cited now
• As for the Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes : you said a more accurate source. AAAS is one of the most reliable sources about Palmyra, you cant get more accurate than that. The issue cited is in Arabic and you dont need to doubt it. If you dont know for sure then you really shouldn't doubt that it is written in Arabic or not. I wrote the key word Qatna in Arabic so you can see that it is written in Arabic.قطنا but anyways, it is not needed as the next source also cover the subject so I deleted the AAAS.
• This journal "The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge" from 1840 didnt normally mention the names of its authors so I cant have them.
• This book for example : Local Etymology: A Derivative Dictionary of Geographical Names by Richard Stephen Charnock is from 1859 and have no ISBN. Many old books and journals have no ISBN or ISSN, how can I get you ones ?!!!!
• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is now properly cited.
• BBC and stuff are consistence now in regard to italicization. By the way, it wasnt me who italicized CBS. I didnt add that reference and the difference isnt because of intended italicization but because of the templates. the "cite news" template will give you an italicized publisher while the "cite web" template will give you a non italicized publisher. I cant even believe that this is a serious problem !!!!!
• You cant oppose this on bases of 1C. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable
• I just spent 7 continuous hours to make every citation full, hope this is appreciated and will make your strong opposition a normal one. If this way <re f>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ ref> or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) is the only accepted way of citations and the citation templates are refused then Im gonna think about withdrawing the nomination because this is just a complete child play. Spending months writing and reading hundreds of books then getting the article refused because "the style of the citations isnt pretty to my eyes".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Featured Article process is very demanding. It makes expectations not only of the quality of the prose and references, but that references are fully cited and presented in an internally-consistent manner (which, no, does not mandate short-form references). I realize that this isn't the "fun" part of article writing, but it is a well-established aspect of the Feature Article candidacy process. Please don't take it personally; my interest is in ensuring that the articles we highlight as our best work meet all of our criteria for that standard, even the ones that aren't exciting. Taking a moment to opine, I often wish that the GA criteria were more stringent, so that the leap in expectations between GA-quality work and FA-quality work were not so large as it is. But we work with the criteria we have.

• Following up on your comments about AAAS: AAAS is, without question, a high-quality source. My suggestion that you might need to consult another source was not meant to imply that it was unacceptable, but that Google Books was giving you insufficient and possibly incorrect material. Specifically, as with several other references, this is a scholarly journal; citations to it need to be to the individual articles, not the journal as a whole.

• Publishers should generally not be abbreviated. For the Bryce source, Oxford University Press, not OUP. And definitely not "OUP Oxford", even if that's what Google Books claims in its sidebar.
• The Arbeitman source is not correctly cited. Yoël L. Arbeitman is the editor of the book, not its author. Each section is an independent article with its own title and author. Arbeitman needs to be moved to |editor and the article title and author indicated with |chapter and |author. In this case, "The etymologies of Tadmor and Palmyra" by M. O'Connor (at least for anything citing pages between 235 and 254, inclusive). Ideally, the citation would provide the full pagination of the cited article within the larger source, but citing exclusively to the referenced page is probably acceptable under the MOS, and I won't quibble. Pedantically, the publisher is styled as Peeters, not Peeters Publishers.
• Brill, not BRILL, in the Murtonen source. This is one part of a very large multivolume work. The full set of sub-subtitles here is unwieldy, and can probably be safely omitted, but adding |volume=13 is probably warranted. Murtonen is correctly identified as the author here; whether you also indicate J.H. Hospers as editor is probably discretionary. Use this tool to convert the ISBN to a properly formatted ISBN-13.
• For works like Charnock, that predate the establishment of the ISBN system, it is possible to provide an OCLC number, which can be found via WorldCat search. There is some art to using WorldCat, as individual printings often receive different OCLC numbers (and sometimes, due to errors, the same printing may have more than one OCLC number assigned). When you can unambiguously identify an OCLC number, and no ISBN exists, it's helpful to include it, because it makes it easier for readers to access the work. I will note that OCLC numbers are sometimes assigned to e-copies of books. Established precedent indicates that when you are working from a faithful reproduction of the print source (as full Google Books scans [usually] are), you can cite the original format of the work; that you are working from an archive doesn't change what you're actually referencing. In any case, always use OCLC numbers, not OCoLC numbers. Accordingly, to get things started, Charnock is OCLC 4696115.
• In the Le Strange source, "A.D.", not "A. D.", and "to", not "To". Cosimo is a print-on-demand publisher and so its works would often not be deemed reliable sources; in this case, however, this is a reprint of a work now in the public domain, so you're fine in that sense. The publisher needs to show the actual imprint it was published under, Cosimo Classics, and not the parent company. Finally, you should add the original date of publication, 1890, using |origyear.
• The BBC article, "Syria uncovers 'largest church'" has an explicit date: 14 November 2008. Because you provide these dates (when available) for other web sources, you need to be consistent.
• Convert the ISBN for Stoneman.
• There are still problems with the Izumi source that you have styled as Space Archaeology. Because you split the author name into the |last and |first fields, it displays in last, first order. Personally, I prefer that. But elsewhere you've used |author and forced names to appear in first last order. You need to be consistent, whichever you choose. More importantly, this journal is not called Space Archaeology, despite what Google Books is telling you (that's basically the cover story of this issue). I don't really blame you for getting tripped up by this. Situations like this got me in the past, too. Google Books is very, very bad at dealing with digitized journals. Very bad. The journal is actually styled as Silk Roadology. Scholarly journals do not need their publisher specified.
• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is still not okay. You need to indicate that those three individuals are the editors of the work (use the editor fields). The title of the work should be the title of the book: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität, Berlin. Use author and chapter fields to specify the individual article and its author. Finally, this is a multi-volume work, so you should indicate that you are referencing |volume=1
• For Dirven: again, Brill, and ISBN conversion.
• For Young, Google Books malformed the date range in the title by converting an unspaced endash to a spaced hyphen, because Google hates typography, or something. That part of the title should read 31 BC–AD 305.
• For Smith II, Oxford University Press, not OUP USA.
• The "'Imitation Greeks'" source is problematic. This isn't actually a book published by ProQuest (they aren't really a publisher; they are a microform reproduction distributor). What this actually is is a doctoral dissertation by Nathanael John Andrade. Material such as this is sort of in a gray area regarding WP:RS, as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you can replace this with a higher-quality source, that might be ideal. If consensus here is that it is acceptable to retain, you'll need to reformat it with {{cite thesis}} and include the relevant bibliographic information.
• Some days I hate Google Books. I don't know what they did with the source you cite as Hillers and Cussini, but the cover and copyright page make clear that Eleonora Cussini is the sole editor of the work. As in several other cases, restyle the publisher and convert the ISBN. Also, this is another case where the chapters are individual articles with their own authorship. Page 55 is part of "The City of the Dead" by Michal Gawlikowski.

And here I'm stopping again. I've gone through the first 25 of 389 references. Some of these are problems are nitpicking concerns over styling. But several are significant problems with the accuracy and completeness of citations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I didnt take it personally but a strong oppose without giving me directions on how to fix the problems (since Im a noob here, I didnt even know that there are editor and original year parameters) made me upset (and my insomnia didnt help me to stay calm). Now when I read back, i can see that I was rude and overreacted. apologies.

• Yoël and Charnock fixed
• OUP and BRILL fixed
• I replaces the cosimo la-Strange with the original one
• BBC date for the church fixed
• last name/first name problem fixed
• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner fixed
• Young and ISBN's fixed
• Andrade took his PHD thanks to this thesis and got it printed as a legitimate book by Cambridge university press Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. But anyway, I replaced the thesis with other sources.
• Hillers fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well. A belated welcome to FAC, then! My apologies for not recognizing that you were new to this process, which can sometimes very much be a trial-by-fire. I'll certainly have more material to address when I get a few minutes to review further. The goal, as always, is better articles. As a drive-by comment, there's absolutely no problem with citing Andrade from the Cambridge University Press book, just a problem with citing the Andrade thesis directly. But if other sources serve just as well, that works too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by an IP

• "The Palmyrenes were primarily a mix of Amorites, Arameans and Arabs,[2]" The lead should ideally be devoid of any inline citation. The information cited is something that should be discussed in the main prose, where the inline citation should go.
• "In 1929, the French began moving villagers into the new village of Tadmur." Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
• "its incorporation into the Roman Empire in the first century." AD? Such as this, "By the third century AD"
• "Palmyra was a prosperous metropolis and regional center" is there something missing? center for?
• "Before 273 it enjoyed autonomy for much of its existence." Is this a date? Sorry, not an aficionado.
• "In 260 the Palmyrene king Odaenathus defeated the Persian emperor Shapur I. He fought" I suppose "he" refers to the king Odaenathus?

Fixed. As for the citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them. It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.

For the regional center: nothing is missing, it was a center of its own region.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Al Ameer son

I contributed to this article not too long ago (added a bit of content to the "Arab caliphate" section and otherwise made some copyedits here and there). I've already commended the nominator for his efforts and I do so again. With what has been happening to Palmyra lately, many people who don't know much about the city but hear about its ongoing destruction on the news will come here to learn about the site. I'm glad someone has devoted their efforts at improving their learning experience.

• That being said, having read the entire article, it clearly meets criterion 1a, 1b and 1d. There has not been any real edit warring, but whenever Palmyra is in the news cycle, the article attracts some unnecessary additions made in good faith, but overall it meets 1e. From the outset, the article appears to meet 1c, but I cannot say for sure yet because I haven't gone through all the sources. I will verify a sample of citations throughout the article and anything that seems extraordinary, and from that I can confidently make a conclusion regarding 1c soon.
• The lead is a bit too long, but not totally overwhelming. I think it could be shortened and maybe even restructured a bit to be less a summary of the entire history from the Neolithic period until the present day and more a summary of the article, i.e. the site and its major ruins, the parts of its history most relevant to the ruins and its role as an ancient power (including the city's distinct ancient culture and civilization). Currently, the lead focuses too much on history. The current structure of the article, after Johnbod's suggestion, is fine. The citations format is consistent.
• There is excellent usage of pictures in the article and it appears any issues with the images were addressed in Nikkimaria's image review in the first FAC.
• The article is lengthier than the average FA, but deservedly so due to the sheer amount of information on Palmyra's ruins, history and culture. The article does not go into unnecessary detail, although the lead might. Then again, this is just my opinion.

As of right now, I can say with confidence that the article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, 3 and 4. I await the nominator's response to my suggestion on shortening and possibly restructuring the lead. I will give my take on 1c soon, although I'm pretty confident that the nominator, who has been researching the subject and has been working on the article for so long, has been diligent in adding material that correctly reflects the many and diverse sources he has used. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes, now, the political history isnt the focus of the lead. I will be thankful if you have any specific suggestion (i.e specific sentence to be deleted and another to be written).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead is much better now, in my opinion. I just made a few copyedits to it as well. After the changes you've made, I think the following fragment could be removed: "The city was governed by a senate", unless you think this line is critical to the lead. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the first line is grammatically correct: "is an ancient Semitic city in present Homs Governorate, Syria". Shouldn't it be "in present-day Homs Governorate"? If a copyeditor or reviewer previously copyedited the article, it wouldn't hurt to ping him or her and ask if they could take a look at the revised lead and see if they could make further improvements. You could also ask someone who has never read or edited the article before to do the same thing, but that would likely be a longer process since they might not make any comments about the lead without reading through the article first. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Senate part deleted. It was the copy editor who wrote (present). I added (day). No new sentences were added, I just deleted some, so the lead didnt change grammatically and pinging the copy editor wont be necessary.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support After a few days of looking through various citations to see if the sources matched up with the text (for verification's sake), I am confident that this article meets criteria 1c. As I noted above, I also believe it meets all the other FA criteria as well. This is a highly informative, beautifully written, and well-sourced article that should grace Wikipedia's home page in the very near future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Al-Ameer.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Support by FunkMonk

• Support - I GA reviewed this article, and I can see it has been significantly improved since then, and now lives up to the FA criteria. Would be interesting to see if Squeamish Ossifrage is satisfied with the changes done since his review, though. I think every effort should be made to help the nominator get this article promoted instead of archived, as it is his first nomination (and English is not his first language), but also due to the high importance of the subject, and its current, dire situation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Midnightblueowl

• Comments: I have quite a bit of experience with writing about archaeological subjects here at Wikipedia and thus I am gratified to see that such a lot of admirable work has been paid to this article. However, I have some concerns about the Etymology section. For instance, why is there no link to Pliny the Elder when he is mentioned? Why are citations 3 and 7 placed next to each other when both are citing the same article; surely they should be merged? Why is there a single, solitary citation appearing in the lede; is this really necessary? Generally speaking, I think that this article could probably do with a good prose review before being taken to FAC, and for that reason am Opposed at present. I also wonder if a different citation system would benefit this article, given that a number of key sources are used repeatedly as references (see for instance the citation system used in the recent archaeology-themed FA, Mortimer Wheeler, and my GA at Coldrum Long Barrow, which is much cleaner and more user friendly). Moreover, I am very worried at what seems to be an over-reliance on Google Books as a way of finding references in this article. I do certainly appreciate that not everyone has access to university resources and all of the books and articles that they can provide, but really Google Books is too selective in what it offers to be truly reliable for something like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

1- the article was already copy edited by the copy-edit guild. It was also read thoroughly (specially the prose which was edited multiple times) by Jonbod, Al-Ameer son and Dudley Miles (in his peer review). How many prose read should this article get before it is just too much?. Another prose read will mean that this is the fourth time. This could go on forever and a line must be drawn at some point

2- Pliny was linked, I cant remember how the link was removed. Its easy to link it again and the source 3 was removed

3- The citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them (look at the article history before I rewrote it). It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.

4- I prefer this citation style in my articles as it can get you to the page in the source. It is not a criteria to follow a certain style

5- There is really no need to worry about google books. They are added for the sole reason of giving you a chance to read the source. I already have a large collection in my university library and I could have not provided any links to google books but I thought (and still convinced) that those links are helpful for users who want to inspect the source. All the recent academic books written on Palmyra were used. So no selectivity and Palmyra isnt a controversial subject to be afraid that the whole truth isnt present. Do you like me to delete the links to google books ?? this way only the name of the source will remain and it wont look like there is a reliance on a library called google books.

I dont think that you noticed that I used many old middle eastern sources that has no preview on google books. Yet, I added a link to google so that the reader can see that this book exist. Obviously, I didnt read those sources on google.

I have edited the article to address the real problems you mentioned.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I still don't think that the prose is up to full FA quality just yet. There are many, many sentences that I feel could be improved. For instance, the article refers to "by the end of the millennium Arameans were mentioned as inhabiting the area" but no statement is given as to where this was "mentioned". Names like Albert Schultens and Hadrian are dropped without explaining who they were. Wording such as "as an alteration (supported by Schultens)," could be improved considerably. I'm still opposed at this juncture, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this, and I would be willing to change my opposition to a support if I see these prose problems cleaned up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, you need to point the prose problem considering that 5 other experienced editors read the article and didnt see those problems. Throwing a random note doesnt help as those problems that you found werent considered problems for others. You need to be specific about what you think is wrong so you need to do a pros check yourself since a "problem" to you isnt a problem to another. There is no set of rules to count on, when trying to discover what you consider a problem, so you need to be more clear as other editors cant figure out what you would consider a problem.

Schultens and Hadrian need explanations ? this would most definitely be a distraction. The article is about Palmyra not about Schultens. The names are linked for people who dont know them. We cant explain about Hirohito (for example) in an article about a different subject.

The Arameans were mentioned by the Assyrians which is an information clearly written in the section Palmyra#Early_period. This section came in before the population section but I had to change its place due to Jonbod earlier review.

"as an alteration (supported by Schultens)". How can it get any more clearer ? I even wrote a note (note 3) which explain the alternation and it read like this : According to Schultens, the Romans altered the name from "Tadmor" to "Talmura", and afterward to "Palmura" (from the Latin word "palma", meaning palm),[2] in reference to the palm trees. Then the name reached its final form "Palmyra".[7].

I ask you to do a prose check and point the problems you see since other editors didnt find them and I cant be in your mind to see what you see as a problem cause I find everything clear for now, and so did the people in pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira who promoted the article to FA. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to be a little more specific. I have tidied up the prose in a few places where I felt that improvements could be made. However, there are other instances where I feel that a rewrite is certainly desirable For instance, take the following sentence: "It is generally believed that "Palmyra" derives from "Tadmor" as an alteration (supported by Schultens),[note 3][4] or a translation of "Tadmor" (assuming that it meant palm), and derived from the Greek word for palm "Palame" (supported by Jean Starcky).[2][5]" That could clearly be improved. At present, it is quite clunky, what with the three uses of brackets and the use of terms like "supported by Jean Starcky". For me, it is the odd sentence such as this one which hold he article back from truly reaching FA quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for this User:Midnightblueowl. Dudly Miles already conducted a full review of the article after you asked for one. He pointed whatever he felt "wrong" and so did the other reviewers. Now the ball is on your side. I edited the sentence which you felt needed improvements. I'll be waiting for you to point whatever you consider need improvements.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Others, such as Jean Starcky, considers" should be "Others, such as Jean Starcky, consider". There are a few other prose issues in this paragraph still. It's not a major thing, but for me it holds back the article from being FA. I'm happy to lend a hand and deal with these issues myself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks User:Midnightblueowl.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have struck out my opposition to this page's nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Palmyra changed hands between the different empires that ruled the area, becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD." For clarity I suggest something like "Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires, before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD."
• "Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[19] However, excavation supports the theory that the temple was originally located on the southern bank;" This is confusing. First you say that there was an earlier temple on the site, then that it was elsewhere.

• Now you are saying " Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[18] However, excavation supports the theory that the tell was originally located on the southern bank" This is even more confusing. A tell is a hill built up by successive occupation layers - it cannot move from the south to the north bank. I am still not clear what you mean. Is it that the Hellenistic temple on the north bank did not really exist, or that there was another even earlier temple on a tell on the south bank? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have rearranged some of the People, language and society section. Change anything you are not happy with. I have bundled refs at the end of the section and they need sorting out. In the version before my revision there were three refs for "but after the invasion by Timur it was a small village until the relocation in 1932" - far too many for a simple statement and they are not obviously relevant.
• Temples section. There are links to further information on the temples of Bel and Baalhamon, but Bel is not mentioned below and Baalhamon is spelled differently.

I fixed and did what you noted. I meant that the tell and the temple above it were south of the wadi; for clarity I changed the sentence to give this meaning. As for the temples section, Baal-Hamon is a different deity from Baal-Shamin. Since the temple of Bel and the temple of Baalshamin have their own articles I felt that its enough to give links to those articles, to avoid inflating the article of Palmyra with unecessary explanations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• "The newcomers were assimilated by the earlier inhabitants, spoke their language" This is unclear. Were the newcomers the Arabs? Were they assimilated by the Arameans and did they speak Aramaic? If they learnt the language you should say "learned" rather than "spoke".
• "Before 274 AD, Palmyrenes spoke a dialect of Aramaic and used the Palmyrene alphabet." You mention in a note that Aramaic is last used in an inscription of 274, but nevertheless languages spoken do not change suddenly in one year. I think it would be better to say "Until the late third century".
• In the next paragraph you state that Palmyrenes were a mixture of different peoples until 273 - cities are almost always a mixture of different peoples and they do not suddenly stop being so unless there is mass ethnic cleansing. You say below that tribal identity lost its meaning in the third century, which suggests a gradual process.
• Note 11 "E.g. by the second century, Palmyrene goddess Al-lāt was portrayed in the style of the Greek goddess Athena" I assume BC, but you should make this clear.
• "Palmyrene bust reliefs, unlike Roman sculptures, are rudimentary portraits; although many reflect high quality individuality, their details vary little across figures of similar age and gender" I am not clear what you are saying here. if they are rudimentary portraits which vary little, how can they reflect individuality?
• "Towers were replaced by funerary temples as above ground tombs after 128, which is the date of the most recent tower" This is puzzling and again you are using over-exact dates. 128 BC or AD, and the fact that that is the most recent known date does not mean there was a sudden change then. "as above ground tombs" is clumsy and superfluous.
• Public buildings section. You only give a date for the agora and the Temple of Baal-hamon. An approximate date for the other buildings would be helpful.
• In the temples section, I do not think your practice is correct. You should cover the most important temples for readers who do not want to follow links, not leave them out because they are covered in other articles. This applies particularly to the Temple of Bel, which is mentioned several times elsewhere 'Further information' is for more information about topics covered briefly, not to refer readers to topics omitted. If you are concerned about excessive length, you could create an article on Palmyra temples and refer readers to it for further information.
• "a tessera depicting the sanctuary was excavated" This can't be right. A tessera is an individual cube in a mosaic.
• "Further information: Great Colonnade at Palmyra" You do not give details about this. If it is not important enough to be in the article, it should not be in 'Further information'. (It could be in 'See also').
• "The shrine might have been connected to the royal family as it is the only tomb inside the city's walls" You say this was built in the third century - BC or AD? Did not the Roman prohibition on tombs inside towns apply?
• "to provide a costume barrier" What is a costume barrier?

Fixed. The Arabs are the newcomers. I clarified everything you pointed. I added small paragraphs for the temples and colonnade. Athena-Allat is AD actually. For the reliefs; I didnt write this paragraph as it was added by Jonbod. Some Palmyrene reliefs reveal individuality but the majority do not and I clarified this. The senate of Palmyra wasnt excavated extensively and no date exist. The Tarif court and Triclinium were part of the Agor complex and built at the same time and I clarified this.

For the tessera: the sources about Palmyra use this word and some of them were written by the excavators :

• Nathanael J. Andrade : Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World, Cambridge University Press
• Javier Teixidor : The Pantheon of Palmyra, Brill
• Andrew M. Smith II : Roman Palmyra: Identity, Community, and State Formation, Oxford University Press
• Clifford Ando,Jörg Rüpke : Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion, Walter de Gruyter.

What is your suggestion on the tessera subject ?

I would say a mosaic but you could say tesserae (plural of tessera).

costume barrier as in a border to watch the merchandise entering the city or leaving it. As for the tomb : Palmyra always had more independence than normal Roman cities. The building no.86 is a tomb so obviously the city had the ability to break Roman law.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• "when Puzur-Ishtar the Tadmorean agreed to a contract at an Assyrian trading colony in Kultepe" I would add in brackets after Tadmorean (Palmyrene). It is easy to forget that you said Tadmor is an alternative name in the etymology section.
• "In 217 BC, a Palmyrene force led by Zabdibel joined the army of King Antiochus III in the Battle of Raphia which ended in a Seleucid defeat.[" I would say by Ptolemaic Egypt. Did Palmyra stay Seleucid or the Ptolemaics gain temporary control?

Changed tessera to "mosaic piece". Done for Tadmoraen, and as for Raphia : Palmyra wasnt mentioned in the records of the battle. Only Zabdibel was mentioned and scholars concluded that he was a Palmyrene because that name was only found in Palmyra. We really dont know the situation of Palmyra back then and no source discuss it (I tried to look in my university's library as you asked this question in your last peer review but got nothing). Normally, Palmyra is part of Coele-Syria which would mean that it belonged to Egypt during the Syrian Wars but no scholar ever noted or discussed that. They do, however, consider Palmyra with the Seleucids from the beginning and since Palmyrene auxiliary served with the Seleucids and No Egyptian record exist about Palmyra during that era and the concept of Coele-Syria is very fluid in its geographic definition then probably Palmyra was not occupied by Egypt as those wars aimed at Coele-Syria which is an area that has different indications and a term that wasnt used by the Ptolemaic kingdom (hence, maybe they didnt consider Palmyra part of the region). We will never know as no source discuss it.

• "Toward the end of the second century, Palmyra began a steady transition from a traditional Greek city-state to a monarchy;[178] urban development diminished after the city's building projects peaked.[179] The Severan ascension to the imperial throne in Rome played a major role in Palmyra's transition:" I find this and the following comments confusing. You say a transition to a monarchy, but the earliest recorded lord of the city is apparently 60 years later. Then you insert the apparently irrelevant truism that a decline in building projects leads to a decline in urban development. Then you say that the rise of the Severan dynasty assisted Palmyra's transition to a monarchy, and emperors stationed troops there and encouraged a transition to Roman institutions. None of this sounds like encouraging an independent Palmyrene monarchy. Later it appears that the election of a lord was a reaction to Roman weakness in the face of the Persian threat in the middle of the third century rather than the culmination of a long term trend.

The militarization of the city is what led to the monarchy. It was the steady centralization of power that led to monarchy. This centralization and militarization began with the Severans and their policy. The emperors obviously didnt have in mind to turn Palmyra into a rival but stationing the troops in Palmyra and the wars they engaged with the Parthians leading to damage for the Palmyrene trade led Palmyra to strengthen itself and its military. The Palmyrene troops began to protect the Empire instead of trade and it was inevitable that a strong general will someday turn those troops into a power base and end the semi-democracy of Palmyra (Odaenathus was this guy). I moved the sentence about urban development to the preceding paragraph. Now the transition paragraph discuss those changes without distractions. The election of Odaenathus was a direct reaction but the circumstances allowing this election and allowing an strong army to exist started with the Severans and their wars

The Camridge History is directly attributing the rise of the monarchy to those factors. In page 512, the section is titled : From city to principality and it talks about Palmyra's transition into a monarchy. In the preceding pages, it speak about the Severan wars and the Sassanid's caused instabilities, and then open in page 512 with a direct connection between those wars and Palmyra's transition when it say : In this less favorable economic climate, the political situation at Palmyra changed and then continues to describe the Palmyrene transition to a monarchy

• "The nature of those deities is left to theory as only names are known," "left to theory" sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps "is uncertain".

Done

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Taxation was an important source of revenue for Palmyra." I would say to the Palmyran government - you say above that the caravan trade was most important to the economny as a whole.
• " where a tax law dating to 137 was discovered" BC or AD?
• "Antiquities scholar Andrew M. Smith II" "Antiquities scholar" sounds old fashioned. Maybe "Classlcist" for an assistant professor of classics.
• "The oasis had about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) of irrigable land,[376] surrounded by the countryside.[377]" This is not quite right. The citation for the second half of the sentence just says that agricultural land was insufficient to support the city. Presumably it was surrounded by desert rather than countryside.
• "Palmyra was a minor trading center until the Timurid destruction" I would repeat the date here to remind readers.
• "Palmyra's main trade route ran east to the Euphrates, where it connected to the Silk Road.[381] The route then ran south along the river toward the port of Charax Spasinu on the Persian Gulf, where Palmyrene ships traveled back and forth to India." I think you need to state when this applies. The article on Charax Spasinu states that it was a major port in late antiquity. You say below during the Roman Empire - so the first 4 centuries AD?
• "For its domestic market Palmyra imported slaves, prostitutes, olive oil, dyed goods, myrrh and perfume" But above you say agricultural products as well.
• I wonder whether the section on destruction by ISIL would go better at the end after 'Excavation'. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Done for all. the products mentioned arent the only ones that Palmyra imported. They are just examples. I reworded the sentence to give the meaning. The tax law is AD. I fixed the part about the countrysides to match the source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think the article is nearly there - a few more queries.
• "Benjamin of Tudela recorded the existence of 2,000 Jews in the city during the twelfth century." This does not belong in a paragraph about a period a thousand years earlier. I suggest moving it to after "mainly inhabited by the Kalb tribe".
• "according to traditional scholarship, the Palmyrenes' Greek practices were a superficial layer over a local essence". The source says "scholars have often construed" - this is not the same as "according to traditional scholarship". Also you are implying an alternative view, but you do not give Andrade's alternative.
• "After the Roman destruction of the city, Palmyra was ruled directly by Rome,[319] and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[248][320] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks." This is confusing. Presumably "its following states" means the states which followed Rome, but they are dynasties rather than states. Perhaps "and afterwards by Moslem dynasties".
• "The royal army was under the leadership of the monarch aided by generals" This is stated as a general description of the army, but it presumably only applied in the mid-third century?
• "In 1902, Gertrude Bell visited the city and wrote extensive letters.[" I doubt that this is worth mentioning. The source does not say she wrote about or worked in Palmyra. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

cleared the royal army part and rewarded the sentence about traditional scholarship. I understood (and I could be wrong) that Andrade's view is similar to Millar; that is a fusion between greek culture and oriental one instead of a Greek layer over an oriental one. Since Millar is an A-list historian, I thought mentioning him is enough. If you see that there are differences between Andrade and Millar's views please tell me so I can fix it

I removed Benjamin of Tudela sentence. As for the states, I think its tricky, The Byzantine empire was Rome but it wasnt Rome at the same time. Yes, they are the eastern Roman empire but they are always distinguished from proper Rome. Even if we let go of the Byzantine detail, we still have the Moslims states, the Hamdanids were a dynasty under the Abbasid Caliphate but the Ottomans were their own state not simply a dynasty, so were the Mamluks but the Fadl were a dynasty under the Mamluks. I will wait for your reply on this matter and if you still believe that dynasties is better than states then I will replace states with moslims dynasties

Gertrude Bell part was inserted by an IP or a user, cant remember. I didnt like it but it had a source and I hate edit wars so I kept it. Now its removed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I just noted your note about the tell of Bel's temple. I mean that the diversion of the wadi's bed made the tell on its northern bank when the Palmyrenes modified the bed. So its not like the tell physically moved, but the wadi used to flow north of the tell then the Palmyrenes modified the wadi's bed to make it flow to the south of the tell. Can you give me a clearer formula to write ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am still not sure about the Greek culture issue. Andrade says that scholars have interpreted Roman and Greek influence on Palmyra as superficial and argues against it. Ball says the opposite: speaking more generally about the Near East, he says that scholars see Roman and Greek influence as dominant and argues against that view. I suggest contrasting their views without saying which is mainstream.

For "and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[245][317] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks" how about "and then by a succession of other rulers, including the Burids and Ayyubids,[245][317] and subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks".

Done, I eliminated the names of scholars all together.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment: I haven't exactly read a lot of it, but I can tell it looks pretty nice. I might do a full review or whatnot if I have the time, but how come most of the "Destruction by ISIL" section is a bulleted list? In this article it's completely the opposite and it would look more appealing if the section underwent some major changes. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice, I'll give it a read soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the long response. I cannot really detect any major issue, but I'm not sure if I can support because I am far from being familiar with this sort of subject. Judging from many other editors supporting this article it seems more than ready though. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

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.

Venus

Notified: Saros136, Fotaun, JorisvS, Ckatz, Kheider, Serendipodous, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

The article has undergone major change since the latest FAR in 2008 (e.g. [71]). It no longer looks like the same article. There are a few issues that pop out to me - there is an over-use of images and not always in the correct context (one example "Pioneer Venus Multiprobe"). Some sections are very brief and refer to secondary articles without a summary that reads well and fits in well on the Venus page itself. The intro is a little brief and could be better written.Anon 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've placed this review on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination for the moment because I was unable to locate the first phase of the review ("Raise issues at article Talk"). DrKay (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the talk page Anon 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• Some of the images have no alt= text. And some images have alt text the same as the caption. Being the same is not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved. Serendi^podous 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• ref "Nature of the Magnetic Field in the Neighborhood of Venus" is fairly incomplete, and with a typo, correct details are here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969CosRe...7..675D
  • I improved this a little before noticing the FAR; it now appears consistent with what's available through the bibcode, though, sadly, it appears online records for the journal only go back to 2000. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• it would be good to links some more journals, and publishers in the references - on first occurrences may be.
  • I notice some are now linked, but not most. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. Serendi^podous 09:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• dead link for "Venus Close Approaches to Earth as predicted by Solex 11"

• Fixed with archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• dead link for " Numbers generated by Solex"

• Fixed. This just served to explain the source for the prior ref, so I combined them and gave an archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• the "Compare the Planets" references neither of the facts linked to it.

• Fixed by finding old version of that ref with relevant link (now dead) & providing archive link. A2soup (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• ref "A. Boyle – Venus transit: A last-minute guide – MSNBC" missing information and is a dead link.
• ref "See Venus in Broad Daylight!" no retrieval date (it is still there though)
• ref "The Pentagram of Venus" is a blog, and is missing info, cannot tell if this is reliable or not.

Fixed. The guy has a wiki page, so he's probably reliable. Serendi^podous 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• ref Fegley, B (2003). Venus (Treatise on Geochemistry ed.). has "ed.", no page number or ISBN. added
• ref "title". Retrieved 4 January 2015. is missing detail. added
• ref "РАН: запуск "Венеры-Д" состоится не ранее 2024 года" should have an English translation of the title. (perhaps an English language source is available)
• ref "Atmospheric Flight on Venus" is a dead link for me and missing info
  • Rescued via Archive.org. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• refs 166-175 look to be web references and miss retrieval dates and other information.
• ref "The Magellan Venus Explorer's Guide" appears thrice, but the first time has no page number, and the second time has even less info. (there is no ISBN on the book so its absence is a non-issue) found page numbers in the book, linked online version, and made consistent.
• This article should link to Venus in fiction possibly with a short sentence on the topic. Look at Observations and explorations of Venus#Impact on literature which belongs more here, than in that article.
  • I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendi^podous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendi^podous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I think the summary is OK. However we should not be using primary references for the first three documents, secondary references that mention the facts would be more appropriate. Whenever the popular culture section develops in other articles, material only referenced to the work it is in gets the chop, and only if others comment on it, is the mention worth having in Wikipedia. I will add these as an issue down below, so that this one can be resolved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nowhere does Venus tell us that it appears as a white star. The colour is a basic fact that should be mentioned.

• Added this fact (with ref) to first sentence of observation section. A2soup (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• "thick clouds" composition does not match what the sources say. The sources also mention aluminium chloride, ferric chloride, and "sulfates", partially hydrated phosphoric anhydride and octasulfur. sulfur dioxide looks to be an atmospheric gas rather than a cloud droplet material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Sky and Telescope" is used where the correct name appears to be "Sky & Telescope" fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Page is in this category: category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls so there may be an error hidden in there somewhere.
• Citation needed for "Venus's opaque clouds prevent observing the Sun from the planet's surface"

added. Serendi^podous 10:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=2and http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=229 are two different references that seem to result in the same page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Use of thinspace, is this OK? (in the info box)
• ISBN format dashes or not?

fixed. Serendi^podous 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

More fixes; I wrote an in-browser ISBN tool a while back that can properly hyphenate ISBNs, and I've verified most of the ones currently in the article. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Calculate/show" should this read "Calculate and show"? The page is called Apparent Disk of Solar System Object.

Fixed. Serendi^podous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• In one place we say Cassini–Huygens and another Cassini.
• Since we use British English, should "center" be replaced by "centre" where it is not a proper noun, or title?
• " Colonization -> Colonisation
• " color -> colour (three times)
• "co-orbitals" sounds a bit jargon-like.

fixed. Serendi^podous 15:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• fixed Dawsow name error.
• " destabilize -> destabilise
• Encyclopædia or Encyclopedia? two different things used for Encyclopædia Britanica. "æ" look right here.
• Britannica online encyclopedia needs capitalisation anyway - and is not the name the site uses also
• fly-by or flyby? (also fly-bys or flybys)
• Hitran or HITRAN?

Above spelling issues resolved. Serendi^podous 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The "Lightnings on Venus studied on the basis of Venera 9 and 10 data" reference is actually in Russian. Did anyone actually locate a copy and read it? In any case the journal title ( Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia) and article title would be in Russian, so see if we can get original. Google suggests " Космические Исследования" An English translation is also published with bibcode=1980CosRe..18..325K

• I found and read a translation. It looks like that journal was regularly translated and republished in America as Cosmic Research. I changed to ref to the translation. A2soup (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Should "false colour image" be "false-colour image"? (with hyphen in adjective)

fixed. Serendi^podous 13:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Three primary references used in the "In fiction" section should be secondary sources instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• V.A. Krasnopolskii or V. A. Krasnopolsky — likely the same author with two transliterations.

Possibly but I don't see how we'd prove it. Serendi^podous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• MESENGER or MESSENGER ?
• midday seems preferable to mid-day
• Should "Planet-C" be "PLANET-C"?

Spelling issues resolved. Serendi^podous 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "in false-colour" should not have a hyphen as colour is now the noun, not part of adjective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 21:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Notified: Anomie, WikiProject Video games

This article's status currently states that this article is a featured article; however, there happen to be a lot of errors, most of which are unverifiable claims, tagged by [citation needed] and [unreliable source?] tags. I have not (yet) noticed any dead links, but this article has a lot of problems, so I am hoping that we could delist this article and leave it like that until we manage to complement it once again. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - You notified yourself on the FAR and not the original nominator? Also, you didn't notify the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I must have rushed what I was doing, and, because this is my first time, I told for myself do something which is a not-to-do. I am sorry, and how do I notify the WikiProject of something? Also, am I in trouble for the clutter? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • See Template:FAR-instructions on how to make an FAR. GamerPro64 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I already started doing so even after I had left the page. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – Following references deadlink: 3, 8, 31, 42, 43, 44, 47, 85. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty bad, it is. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Links 8, 42 and 43 repaired with archiveurl. Link 3 already has archiveurl. Link 31 is a print reference. Links 44, 47 and 85 load for me, do not appear to be dead. -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I can also confirm that 44,47 and 85 are working fine.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Gamingforfun, looks like this nom missed the step of discussing problems on the talk page first. Thus, I'm going to put this on hold to allow for this to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Relisted: The talk page discussion has concluded that "romhacking.net", which is used in the article as a source, is self-published by the main editor of the article and that it therefore probably does not qualify as a reliable source. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems like a baby-with-the-bathwater situation to delist a FA on the basis that a single source is unreliable. Looking at the information it was referencing, I'm not convinced that I needed to know that level of detail about the technical specifications of the SNES. Could we just comment that stuff out until a more reliable source is found, if ever? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that if the only remaining issue is with a soure covering a relatively minor part of the article it wold make more sense to remove the content than the featured article status.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think we've taken the wrong tack here. It's not that the romhacking.net link needs to be replaced but what the hell is going on in the "Technical specifications" section? It is a romp through jargon that is totally unexplained and unhelpful to the general reader. None of our other console FAs have anywhere near that amount of superfluous technical detail—no wonder we're having trouble sourcing it to a mainstream source. The goal of the section should be understanding the hardware in the context of its time, not listing every spec—that's for another (specialist) website and outside our scope. Indeed, the section has only collected more detail since 2007. Trim it back, I say. This is not "brilliant prose" as is. czar 05:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Notified: WikiProject Women writers

WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's listed at WP:URFA. It's taken me a while, mostly due to RL commitments, to check it for sources and to improve its prose, but I feel it's ready for an FAR. I haven't notified any other users, since I'm the main editor of this article, although I did notify the appropriate wikiproject. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Two quick comments, and please double check my edits/summaries (I'll try to have a look through the rest another time) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC):

• "For example, Angelou was worried about her readers' reactions to her disclosure in her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, that she was a prostitute. She went through with it, anyway, after her husband Paul Du Feu advised her to be honest about it.[36]" Do you have an example from Caged Bird? I worry that you're drifting too far from the topic.

I understand your objection, but I think that this should stay. It supports the assertion in the previous sentence, that Angelou was a pioneer of self-disclosure, and provides an example of it. I realize that Du Feu's advice occurred after Caged Bird, and in connection to another autobiography, but I think it provides comprehensiveness. I'm not unwilling to accept your direction, though.

• "Angelou's editor, Robert Loomis, agrees, stating that she could rewrite any of her books by changing the order of her facts to make a different impact on the reader." You say this at least twice, and you link to the article on Loomis several times.

Actually, just twice, but you're right of course, so I removed it in the "Style and genre" section. I did a little restructuring of the article for this FAR, so the redundancy is an artifact of it. Thanks for the catch.

• "For example, Maya responds assertively to the demeaning treatment by her white employer Mrs. Cullinan and later on in the book, breaks the race barrier to become the first black streetcar operator in San Francisco." Are you missing a word or two here?

Um, I don't think so. Could you please make the correction you think should be made? Then I'd know what you think is missing.

I think the meaning is clear- my worry is solely a grammatical one. I think it's the fact that the victim of the "demeaning treatment" is not made clear. How about (I've also played with commas) "For example, Maya responds assertively when subjected to demeaning treatment by Mrs. Cullinan, her white employer, and, later on in the book, breaks the race barrier to become the first black streetcar operator in San Francisco." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, replaced with your better sentence as per your suggestion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• "with an ear for dialogue—a good listener with a rich oral heritage. Hagen also insists that Angelou's years of muteness provided her with this skill." Reference? Also, I think this is a little non-neutral.

It's a paraphrase of Hagen (p. 19). I added the ref at the end of the sentence. I could include the entire quote if you like.

I think it's a little critical to say in Wikipedia's "neutral" "voice", so a direct quote may be beneficial. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Josh, thanks for the copyedit and for your comments. Waiting for additional comments, but there's no hurry with the time of year and all. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Critic Pierre A. Walker agrees" This is quite a claim- he literally agrees that Caged Bird is "perhaps the most aesthetically satisfying autobiography written in the years immediately following the Civil Rights era"? (Also, grammatically, you're claiming that he agrees that it has been called that- surely not the claim you want to make. You could change it to something like "expresses a similar sentiment".)

Great suggestion! I've changed the phrase as per your request. I looked at the source again, and I think that the case could be made that Caged Bird is aesthetically satisfying, since he categorizes it as "high art". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• ""heralded the success of other now prominent [black women] writers"" Do you mean Black? Or are you meaning something slightly different? I know that some writers do this, but it's not going to be familiar to the majority of Wikipedia's readers.

The original source did make a connection between Black women's literature and the success of "now prominent writers". Perhaps I made the connection too strong, so I changed the wording to better reflect the source: "...and was a significant development in Black women's literature in that it "heralded the success of other now prominent writers". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• "In one of the few negative reviews of Caged Bird," Do you have a source for the claim that it's one of the few negative reviews? If not, perhaps you could change this to something like "the book's reception has not been universally positive"

Well, there's no source for your version, but I went ahead and changed it, anyway. I think there's some room in encyclopedic writing for making connections that are obvious but not specifically sourced, as long as it's done sparingly. I believe this is one instance of that.

• "Dr. Jocelyn A. Glazier, a professor at George Washington University, has used" I am not clear on why she gets a "Dr." and "professor at x" when everyone else just gets "scholar"

Yah, others have given that same feedback about using titles. I guess we missed that one. I think that I used Glazier's job because her article is specifically about training teachers at a university setting. I removed the "Dr." but I think it's appropriate to keep her job. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think the discussion of the film belongs in the censorship section; it should probably be given its own section, or else added to a modified "influence" section.

Hmm, it has, in the past. How the heck did that happen? Perhaps I accidentally removed it when working on the Censorship section. Fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• For both style and copyright reasons, I think a straightforward cover scan would be preferable to the side-on view currently used.

Okay, changed.

• Is there a particular reason you do not use an infobox?

There's no infobox because when we worked on this article, several of us were philosophically opposed to infoboxes. At the time, I agreed, but my position has softened a bit since. I still think they're ugly and not always necessary, but I've come to get their purposes. I can insert one, but remember that the article passed FAC without it, and there's nothing in the FA criteria that requires them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A very readable article- I learned a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Although this article was one of my first FACs, it was a foundational experience for me and I'm very proud of it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.

A beautiful article, I definitely see no reason for it to be delisted or this review to remain open. I did come across a few minor things with the prose that I thought I'd ask about:

• Tense switch: "She placed herself back in the time she is writing about"
• Switch from one's to their: "the title pulls Angelou's readers into the book while reminding them that it is possible to both lose control of one's life and to have their freedom taken from them."
• "...always saying I meaning 'we'". Is this how it's written in the source, with quotations around the 'we' but not the 'I'? Just checking.
• "Scholar Joanne M. Braxton sees Caged Bird as an example of the autobiographies written by African-American women in the years following the civil rights movement." Well, obviously it's 'an example'--any one of the books would be an example. Maybe an exemplar? Or "sees it as exemplifying"? or "typifying"?
• "Angelou has never admitted to changing the facts in her stories..." The first part of this para quotes her admitting that.
• File:Angeloupoem.jpg might be better right aligned so she's not facing off of the page.
• This sentence is difficult to read since it looks like "Momma becomes less effective as Maya": "The two main maternal influences on Maya's life change as well; Vivian becomes a more active participant, while Momma becomes less effective as Maya, by becoming a mother herself, moves from childhood to adulthood." Maybe a pair of m dashes?
• Inconsistent capitalization of 'Black': "the strong and cohesive black community of Stamps". Sorry if there's some reason for this I'm unaware of.
• "Hagen also characterize Caged Bird" characterized? characterizes?
• Perhaps split this sentence? Or some conjunction: "Caged Bird catapulted Angelou to international fame and critical acclaim, was a significant development in Black women's literature in that it "heralded the success of other now prominent writers"." Also it's a bit oddly placed in the middle of a para otherwise full of individual critics' specific statements.
• Might the reception section flow better with the paras slightly rearranged? It's currently: Acclaim, Awards, Positive reviews, Sales, Negative reception. How about instead: Acclaim, Awards, Sales, Positive reviews, Negative reception. I also suggest the sentence starting "Caged Bird catapulted Angelou to international fame" move from the middle of Positive reviews to Acclaim.
• This sentence seems tacked on out of place at the end of the school censorship para: "Some have been critical of its sexually explicit scenes, use of language, and irreverent religious depictions." What if you reversed the order of the 2 paras in Censorship, and put that sentence at the end of the general censorship para? Actually it might make sense to combine those paras too, since the general one is just a sentence.

Overall a great read and no problems that would merit delisting. delldot ∇. 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Enceladus

Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

comments from Graeme Bartlett

• I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
• One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
• Another is related, the auroral hiss[72].
• referencing improvements required:
  • The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.
  • Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN.
  • "Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald
  • 56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)
  • Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit.
  • "Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source.
  • "Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release
  • "'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com
  • "A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007
  • "Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date.
  • "Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  Update, done with a few notes:

  • 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
  • The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.

  I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I have struck the confirmed fixed refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
  • There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17
  • There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
  • Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)
  • Cassini‍‍ '​‍s has a non printing character before apostrophe (due to use of {{'s}})
  • Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"
  • infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon's
  • E-ring should be E-Ring
  • We have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm³ (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).
  • Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres (It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=us
  • Using m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2
  • Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully.
  • "Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe
  • " —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)
  • I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)

• Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.

  • Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think so, yes. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

1) In this sentence in the lead:

• Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.

the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:

• Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:

• Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?

• Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

3) The last sentence in the lead is:

• Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.

(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?

(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.

4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:

• Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.

I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:

• It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."

5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?

– Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.

I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.

I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Atmosphere section

DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Banff National Park

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Geology

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added more sources, and could update some of the information like the census numbers. Aude (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Weak close. I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems. Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial. Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I see someone has tagged the geology section for citation needed and clarification with some detailed comments in the edit summaries. So, that section needs looking at. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. I've asked for help at WikiProject Geology for the geology section. Pinging User:MONGO and User:Aude. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

I have moved to FARC maily because of the Geology section needing cleanup. Comments on prose also invited. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway

Notified: WikiProject Bridges, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, the following issues were left unresolved with a project-level consensus that this article should be reviewed here.

1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:

1. "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
2. "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
3. The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
4. "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
5. Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
6. Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
7. Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
8. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
9. "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
10. The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
11. Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
12. The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
13. "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
14. The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
15. "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
16. "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
17. References 3 and 103 are dead links.
18. The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
19. Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
20. Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
21. Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

With regard to suggestions above:

• "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.

Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type

• "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.

Not doneLandmark aptly describes the structure, designated by NRHP, and referred to as such:http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-old-pulaski-rollercoaster-will-continue-to-ride-1.415651?page=all

• The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.

Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining

• "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.

Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ

• Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."

Done link to Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article

• Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.

Done countless road articles, including most in Category:FA-Class U.S. Highway system articles route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical. Nonetheless refs added.

• Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.

Not doneWould seem to add unessential information into an already long article. An exit list has been previously deleted by consensus:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659

• I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.

Not done please do so, though

• "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.

Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"

• The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.

Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written

• Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."

Done removed

• The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.

Done fixed

• "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence

Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED

• The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.

Done split

• "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.

Done fixed

• "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?

Done fixed Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet." at end of the same added

• References 3 and 103 are dead links.

Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link

• The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.

DoneMap focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010. 

• Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.

Done location= Hoboken, NJ added

• Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.

Done removed

• Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.

Done removed Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that everything above is ignoring some fundamental issues with the article, and unless those issues are discussed, we're just doing work to text that will end up trimmed, summarized or even outright deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• With regard to above:
• There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.

but bit of a non-issue since many FA articles are continually be edited such, as Statue of Liberty, a FA with lt more hits than Pulaski Skyway, has had 120 revisions since October 2014; this article has had 56; but the point is, especially since you mention:

• There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status

which would make sense since that time, the specifics of it the reconstruction have come to light as has the political backlash for it's funding

• The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.

which which is long and would make sense since, as mentioned above, Pulaski Skyway#Rehabilitation covers a $billion reconstruction of the which is no small undertaking; it covers the reasons why it's being rebuilt, how it's being re-built, the alternatives to traffic while it's being re-built, and the political scandal that springs from the funding. While there is no WP:UNDUE issues (do you contend that there are differing points of view about the facts being presented/), can you be specific as to why it is too long and what should be removed?

• There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues,

but the last edit made by that person was in April 2014: 140 revisions ago & the work has greatly changed since then.

Your statements, while clear, do not address improvements to the article with regard to content, style, and structure. Without specific concerns as to what appears Wikipedia:Published in the Wikipedia:Namespace, there seems little to be done with your concerns. Can you please state exactly what is wrong with the with the article in regard to Wikipedia:Content policies Djflem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. The paragraph on tolls looks incomplete: the last sentence should have a source or explain why tolls were not implemented. I'm not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue, given that not much appears to have happened in the history of the skyway: it was built, it stood, cars drove over it, it was shut for repairs, etc. Once the design and construction is covered, there's only a limited amount one can write about what happened during its years of use. As work on the article seems to have stalled, without obvious consensus on the article's status, I think we have to move to declarations. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  It is unclear why you have moved this to FARC. The article is not stalled. You will note that where specific issues have been brought up, they have been addressed. Other commentary has been about "concerns" which have not been articulated in a way that express any reasoning for what the specific problem/solution is or have been thoughts or opinions based on personal taste. Other observation and broad generalisations have not been constructive or instructive about making improvements to the article. As seen above, the editor who suggested other changes has been asked to clarify on this page what their wishes are and to react to responses given to those wishes. (By the way, those concerns were never brought to the article talk page, where they should been hashed-out. They were presented as an afterthought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, a closed discussion was posted there). The editor has time to do so, so the lack of response IS consensus. I have waited for answers to questions as to how to handle statements for which are no sources to verify, but none have been forthcoming, and therefore, they have been removed. Any discussion about the claims about UNDUE cannot be talked about without there being an rationale as why they are being made, which has not been offered, thus not fulfilling the criteria for a to proceed from FAR to FARC.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - While many of the minor concerns I brought up were addressed, there are still major concerns with the article that need to be touched upon for this to remain a FA, including the undue weight given to the rehabilitation, unsourced information, and poor structure. Since it seems no one wants to address the major issues, we need to move this article to FARC. Dough4872 15:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  You will have to be more specific than the vague statement you have made above as you are stating opinion, but not backing it up with anything substantive. It appears most the items you brought up have been dealt with. Others are just a matter of preference for a writing style, which is a perogative. Please explain which issues are not addressed and why they should be, particularly in regard to the following. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section. Please explain why it would be better to present the material as you propose; otherwise your claims of improvement cannot be considered constructive. Also, please explain what and why you find the rehabilitation section has undue weight, citing exactly what you are talking about, as is stated above you have not "not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue".Djflem (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC—the only progress here so far is some minor polishing and window dressing, yet substantive issues related to weight of coverage remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any interest in tackling those substantive issues, so I don't foresee this remaining as a FA at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't move to FARC Inappropriate at this time since no explanation, justification, or rationale has been given to any of the claims made re:substantive issues on this or Talk:Pulaski Skyway. As stated per Wikipedia:Featured article review

The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.

This has not happened. Firstly, there is conflict with regards to [[Wikipedia:UNDUE as there are no opposing point of view about the simple facts presented. Further, the comments made do not provide for changes that are actionable, as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Djflem (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

@Djflem: we generally only conclude Review sections as Keep if it is striaghtforward. Moving it here doesn't mean it is demoted, but it can undergo a more protracted editing period to ensure it gets sufficient time to be worked on (sometimes months...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's clear. So why move an article it to FARC if the review is not complete? If there are concerns they should be expressed by those who have them in such a way that other editors can address them, no? Djflem (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The main substantive criticism was the weight of the more recent section, but as I said above, I'm not convinced that the section is undue, given that the skyway has little history to describe other than its construction and repair. The other points raised are essentially arguable either way. I do think that the article is weak because it introduces material, such as the bill to raise tolls, but then doesn't build on or explain that. I suspect that the bill failed and so that's why tolls were never introduced but this is left hanging in the article because there are no sources (that I can find) that actually tell us what happened next. Similarly, we are told that in 1952 some trucks drove onto the skyway, but the paragraph covering that basically sits by itself and doesn't fit easily into the narrative flow, in my opinion. This style of writing can be typical of more esoteric topics, because there is so little material to gather, the article ends up being a hash of individual snippets rather than a flowing story. I am not saying that this material should be cut, only that the subject matter does not lend itself easily to good prose. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard

URFA nom

Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section

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

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

FARC section

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Review

• Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
• Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
• Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
  • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
  • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
    • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
• Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
  • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
• Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
  • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
• instead of:
  • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
• In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
  • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
• There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
  • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
• On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
• Sentences should not start with numbers.
• Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
  • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
• These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
  • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
• Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
  • And ???

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

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter¹²³ (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review response

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

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

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

• Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Update

1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
   • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
   • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
   • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
   • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,

   Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007

   has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)

5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...

Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)

1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
   • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
   • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

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

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

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

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

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

This seems to have stalled, but while the issues with the original article at the time of its writing seem to generally have been fixed, I think it's out of date. There is no mention of the extension in the lede, and gets all of two sentences in the article, which seems drastically short since it's both politically controversial and probably the signature public transport policy of this term of the Weatherill government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My reason for not putting any more about the current proposal to extend is that it is currently still only a proposal. I agree there could be an update that there are now four versions of the proposal in 2015, but it doesn't belong in the lead until it is actually happening; there have been many other proposals that have not eventuated. The political controversy probably belongs just as much in Rymill Park or Weatherill government. I need help from someone else to polish the text further, as FA-standard text is not what I usually practice. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can understand it not going in the lede on that basis, but there still needs to be more details in the relevant section of the article since it is a significant political issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the quality of the text is fine.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no substantive delist votes remaining. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• ozroads.com.au is a self-published source.
• Last two sentences of the second paragraph of Development not sourced
• First paragraph of Buses is not sourced
• The article would really benefit from a map of the route
• I would expect a more detailed route desription for the busway – from one end of it to the other, describe the direction it travels in, features it passes, type of development around it, suburbs it goes through, etc. See the route descriptions of Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, Forrest Highway for some examples of how a route from point A to point B can be described – readers should be able have a basic idea of what a journey on the route is like.
• The Route table, which uses {{AUSinttop}}, can have an interchange column turned on. This will allow the location column to be used for the actual suburbs, which is its purpose.
• Does any reference show the distances ad being exactly 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 km? If not, don't use a false precision.
• Converted speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 5 – the extra precision doesn't serve any purpose for readers
• In terms of structure/organisation, I would usually put a description-type section first, before a history-type section. This allows readers, especially those not familiar with the subject or area, to understand more of and have some context of what is discussed in the history section.
• The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so there shouldn't be information in there that isn't in the rest of the article – I don't see O-Bahn etymology, passenger capacity, operated by Light-City Buses, and current passenger numbers elsewhere in the article.
• The lead seems quite short and an inadequate summary of the article – whole sections aren't mentioned at all (Effects on local development, Environment).
• Has an infobox been considered? {{Infobox rail line}} has some appropriate fields, and allows ones that aren't applicable to be skipped. The route diagram could also go in the infobox.

Those are the more major issues issues I can see – I haven't done a full check for MOS or other minor/copyediting issues. - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to address all of those at once tonight, but am making a start...

• OzRoads is a secondary reference for two points about the MATS plan, the text probably is suitable by just removing it, but they are offline sources difficult to access.
• It appears the unreferenced sentences were referenced until a significant copyedit in April seems to have just dropped the reference, so I have put it back.
• I've cited the first sentence of that paragraph, haven't found a WP:RS for the rest yet.
• I've tried making a few maps for Wikipedia, but my computer system is not really up to the job yet. I think the SA roads datasets has the relevant data with a suitable licence. I hope to get a suitable computer within 12 months.

I've learned a new parameter for {{convert}} - thanks :-)

Route table, lead and infobox can wait for another session.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 14:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: and @Jj98:, do you feel you've covered all of @Evad37:'s issues raised above. I don't think leaving this open a few more weeks is a problem if we are in striking distance of keep territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the nudge @Casliber:. I had thought I had addressed @Evad37:'s issues, but have made a couple of new edits to the lead section after looking with fresh eyes today. The "O-Bahn City Access Project" also now addresses comments from @SandyGeorgia: months ago, and @The Drover's Wife: before any certainty that the extension would go ahead this time. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

2016

@SandyGeorgia: @DrKay: @Maralia: @Evad37: @Casliber: Could I please have an update on this? It has been open for review for almost a year, and I have done what I am capable of. I'd like an opinion on the two sets of route numbers (in the route table, and again with brightly coloured numbers just below). I'm not sure if either is practically maintainable, and don't know the source of the pretty colours for the route numbers (I did not add that bit, it appeared about a week ago). --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)