Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Hugh Beadle[edit]

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir Hugh Beadle, PC, CMG, OBE, Chief Justice of Rhodesia at the time of UDI in 1965, is today chiefly remembered for making the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson quite angry. Beadle was very much an Establishment figure, thought the Rhodesian Front government under Ian Smith a motley collection of amateurs and, according to one biographer, would be "remembered as a Commonwealth chief justice who upheld individual liberty" had there been no UDI. Perhaps unfortunately, Beadle's life is now defined by UDI and his reactions to it. He initially stood by the British Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs and continued his efforts started before UDI to find a compromise. The failure of the 1966 Wilson–Smith Tiger conference seems to have affected Beadle deeply and by 1968 we find him first ruling Smith's post-UDI order to be the de facto authority in Rhodesia, then declaring it fully de jure. How to explain such a volte-face? Was Beadle an "evil genius" who furtively supported UDI all along, or one who "did his best for his country in a time of difficult choices"? We will probably never know for sure.

This article passed a GA review in January and has just undergone a very productive peer review. I think it comes at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy reading it; all comments welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl[edit]

Nominator(s): RO(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest Ancestral Puebloan great houses in Chaco Culture National Historical Park. It was recently the subject of a two-month-long peer review, where eleven editors commented, including several of our most prolific and respected writers. One of the world's leading Chaco scholars and Chetro Ketl experts, Stephen H. Lekson, was kind enough to vet the article and give me notes via google docs. He said it was "great" and an "excellent" presentation of a complicated topic. Having benefitted from substantial input from others, I believe this article meets or exceeds the FA criteria. RO(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Maps and diagrams could generally stand to be a bit larger
I'm not sure what to do about this one, because several people have told me to not mess with images sizes. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally that is true - you should not fix a px size without good reason. However, MOS:IMAGES#Size explicitly allows for increased image size for "images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart)". You could also play around with using the upright parameter to scale sizes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt text should be concise but accurate - for example, File:Chetro Ketl overlook.jpg is not a black-and-white image
Oops. Thanks for that. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Ancestral_Puebloan_territory.svg: what data source was used to create this map?
I'm really not sure, but it looks pretty accurate to me. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but we do need it to be verifiable...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Where appropriate, it's preferable to use the more specific NPS tag rather than the general USGov - the former links to their particular copyright policy
Will do. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Chacoan_turquoise_pendant.jpg: is a more direct source link available? Same with File:Sandal-12thcentury_ChacoCanyon_NM_USA.jpg, File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg, File:Jar_Chaco_Anasazi_Obelisk_Grayware.jpg. File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg
I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg: because US does not have freedom of panorama for objects, we need to explicitly account for the item's copyright status as well as the photo's. Same with File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Because of the age of the items, pretty much any age-based tag would work - pre-1923, life+100, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Added "old-100" tags to these photos. We hope (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just added direct links to the photos and their descriptions for all items from the NPS Museum photo gallery that are in the article. The photos were taken by the National Park Service. The dating of these objects is included on their gallery pages. They all seem to be 13th century or before. We hope (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, We hope! RO(talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm[edit]

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Gray's The Bard is one of the seminal works of English literature. The direct ancestor of works as varied as The Lord of the Rings, The Last of the Mohicans and Twilight, it's a deeply bleak work which examined not just the taboo topic of the Anglo-Norman eradication of the indigenous cultures of the British Isles, but also the corrosive and ultimately self-destructive effect that conquest had on the conquerors. With its evocative descriptions of armies marching through the rugged landscapes of north Wales, and of the excesses of the alien Norman elite and their ultimate destruction at the hands of the indigenous Celtic population at Bosworth Field, it was an ideal work for painting, and was tackled by artists as varied as William Blake and J. M. W. Turner.

Those of you familiar with William Etty's unique approach to illustrating great works of literature will probably not be shocked to learn that for his take on The Bard, he chose to depict a boatload of naked teenagers. Unlike most of Etty's paintings, which were either derided at the time but later came to be respected, or were greatly admired at the time but then slipped into obscurity, Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm has been controversial since Etty exhibited a preliminary sketch of it in 1822 which was promptly condemned as "offensive and indecent" by The Times. A technically astonishing work (a reasonable case can be made that until the invention of photography, no other artist ever painted such realistic nudes), it also represents the absolute nadir of 19th-century kitsch until Bubbles 50 years later, and there was a general feeling that Etty had spectacularly misunderstood just what The Bard was actually about. Unlike most Etty works, this one has spent most of existence on display in the big London galleries rather than in private hands or in smaller northern galleries, so it's arguably his best known work. Thanks to User:Lingzhi in particular for a lot of minor tweaking on this one. – iridescent 15:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Cant say I would be drawn to the painting, but it does have attractions, and the article and writing are great. My ce adjustments were trivial. Refs and biblo correctly formatted and all from reliabile sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Singora (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
1. You've linked Tate Britain twice in the summary.

2. The first two images in the main body's left column are The Dawn of Love and William Blake's 1798 painting. When viewed on a high resolution screen (my screen is set to a width of 1920px), the second image appears immediately below the first. This creates an unusual problem: the text floats neatly around the first image and then shifts in a bit as it floats around the second. You can resolve this issue by giving both images the same width.

3. Your bibliography has the entry:

*Gilchrist, Alexander (1855). Life of William Etty, R.A. 2. London: David Bogue. OCLC 2135826. 

This source is public domain and can be viewed on Life of William Etty, R. A. This link confirms Etty's apprenticeship in Hull, but is volume 1. Why have you written volume 2? And why not include this link in the bibliography?

4. RE: "The correspondent additionally commented that" -> "The reviewer added" / "The journalist added".

5. You write "in 1949 the painting was transferred from the National Gallery to the Tate Gallery, where as of 2015 it remains". Your source is an article from the Tate website, dated 2007. Do you not have a more recent source? (This is obviously a very minor point.)

6. On the BBC website I found this painting by Alfred Morgan. It looks like a straight copy (apart from the colors). It's part of the V&A collection.

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge[edit]

Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a film that has been running in a theater in India for nearly 20 years, making it by far the longest running film ever in the country. It helped propel to stardom an actor who is now arguably the biggest movie star in the world. I have put a lot of work into this article in hopes to get it promoted to FA, and possibly make TFA on its 20 year anniversary. I look forward to your feedback. BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • "also known as DDLJ" → "abbreviated as DDLJ" or "also known by its acronym DDLJ".
  • "Kajol Devgan (known mononymously as Kajol)" – redundant. Write simply as Kajol (better be on her biography).
It was that way before, but I was told by another editor in a peer review to add this, for readers not familiar with Indian cinema. BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoever be that "another editor", I think he has not understood Wiki fully. If Madonna Ciccone, Adele Adkins and Beyoncé Knowles don't have to be referred to by their full names in most articles, then even Kajol doesn't. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay fine. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • An alt text might be added for the poster.
  • "Earning ₹1.06 billion (US$17 million) in India and ₹160 million (US$2.5 million) overseas" – was the dollars exchange the same when it earned 1 billion?
  • Not sure "one of the biggest hits" is encyclopædic.
Origin and scripting process
  • "Aditya Chopra assisted his father, the director/producer Yash Chopra" – slash should be omitted per WP:SLASH.
  • Somewhere you call him Aditya while there are places where he is called by his surname. Be consistent.
  • Again, "Yash Chopra", "Yash".
The reason for this is that there are 4 people named 'Chopra', and 5 or 6 named 'Khan' mentioned in this article, many times in the same paragraph. I did as best as I could without mentioning their full name each time, which would seem excessive. BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, and what I am trying to say is that mention their full names the first time. After that, you can refer to him simply as Yash. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if that is appropriate either, because people are usually referred to by there surnames when they appear multiple times in articles. I would like to wait and see what a couple other reviewers say before I change to all first names. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "causing Chopra to continue pursuing Shah Rukh.[17][a] Chopra and Shah Rukh Khan had four meetings over several weeks" – "Shah Rukh" or "Shah Rukh Khan" write one and stick to it.
  • "She and Shah Rukh Khan had previously worked together in Baazigar (1993) and Karan Arjun (1995)" – perhaps a "successful" word be added. You can use this source.
  • "Although Chopra was assigned Sameer Sharma as the assistant director" – error.
Sorry, what is the error? BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
"Chopra was assigned Sammer Sharma". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The table needs to meet MOS:ACCESS for row and col scopes.
Done. I patterned it after the FLC List of accolades received by American Hustle. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know so much about the FAC process so that's all I have to say. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that I have fixed everything except the names now, thank you. BollyJeff | talk 21:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Agua Dulce[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the latest entry in my survey of the battles of the Texas Revolution. It's a mostly forgotten episode that had little actual impact on the war or its outcome, although it has the distinction of having been fought at just about the same hour that leaders in Texas were declaring independence several hundred miles away. There is a bit of drama - ambush! high-speed chase across the countryside! stampeding horses! Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Images - only image is the map, which is appropriately licensed. Are there any other images that could be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There are no images that I can find of the Texian commander, and the only image I've found that purports to be of the Mexican commander I cannot verify. I could put File:Campaigns_of_the_Texas_Revolution.jpg (which was used in the FA Texas Revolution) in the Prelude section, but it's hard to read when it's that small. Images of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Sam Houston, James Fannin, or Frank Johnson could go in the background of prelude sections, but they aren't really that important to this article. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Central Commission for Discipline Inspection[edit]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC) · contribs), Colipon (talk)

My first FAC! ... The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection is the Communist Party of China's main anti-corruption agency. Its been in the news lately, most notably in the form of apprehending Zhou Yongkang. --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrow Road[edit]

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Following the disappointment of this year's Football League Championship play-offs in which bitter and long-standing rivals Canaries and Tractor Boys faced off for a place at the final at Wembley, Dweller thought it would be a good idea to rub salt into the wounds by suggesting we get Norwich's home stadium, Carrow Road, up to FA quality in time to celebrate its 80th birthday. So we had a stab up getting it up to snuff, and humbly submit it to the community for scrutiny and criticism. We both appreciate any time and energy commentators spend on this nomination, thanks in advance and we'll both do our best to get to any actions as soon as we can. COYB/OTBC The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM. Just to be clear, the anniversary is Aug 31, and we're hoping for a Main Page appearance then, subject to reaching the required standard in time. --Dweller (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I would like to have had a chance to pre-review this, as I don't think it's quite up to FA standard at the moment, although there's no reason why it can't be ready for a 31 August TFA. I have read it through rather quickly, and have so far picked up a few issues:

  • General
  • In the History section, there are too many very short subsections. Bits like the "Thorpe corner" information don't need subsections to themelves. The effect is to destroy the flow of prose.
  • This should now be fixed, assuming you meant the section about the stands, rather than the history. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "Stadium's name and initial construction history" section the use of the blockquote format in the sentence beginning "The original stadium was described as..." looks inappropriate. Blockquotes don't work for very short quotes – they simply break up the prose even more – and it's not clear in this case what the quote consists of – the whole line, or just the words in quotes?
  • There is a large amount of white space between the "Music" and "Rodeo" sections which is disfiguring. I'm not actually convincd that the rodeo information is wrth keeping, but if it is, it should be connected with the main text.
  • Fixed. Unencyclopedic. Hope the photo looks better now, too - there's still a smidgen of white. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Referencing
  • The format of ref 16 is confusing – can you clarify/simplify
  • Ref 27 – what makes this a reliable highy-quality source?
  • I know what you mean, but the claims supported by the source are extremely uncontentious and fall very much in line with WP:V's comment: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves ... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." The information is about something pitchcare were involved in. I could cut <sorry about the pun> the subsection, but it'd be something of a shame. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 32 – R G Carter Construction: same query
  • Same response! --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 42 – not properly formatted
  • There are several uncited statements:
  • "In the wake of the Ibrox stadium disaster in 1971, safety licences were required by clubs which resulted in the capacity being drastically reduced to around 20,000"
  • "The current stadium consists of four stands; the Barclay (the north-eastern stand), the Norwich and Peterborough Stand (the south-western stand), the Geoffrey Watling City Stand (the north-western stand) and the most recent addition, the Jarrold Stand (the south-eastern stand)"
  • "Floodlights are supported on both corners of The Barclay and the Norwich & Peterborough stands, which are the ends behind the goals"
  • This doesn't strike me as a massively reliable source, but maybe it does the trick, as per comments above re WP:V? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The club has therefore periodically stated that it has plans to significantly increase the capacity of the stadium"
  • Hmm. Really it's a matter of what follows in the rest of the section, but I've cited two such instances. Hope that does the trick. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and look at the prose in more detail, a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks. I'll crack on with that lot soon. --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Stanley Price Weir[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first commanding officer of the 10th Battalion of the 1st Australian Imperial Force, the first battalion of that force raised wholly from South Australia. He commanded the battalion at the Landing at ANZAC, at the Battles of Pozières and Mouquet Farm, and only requested relief when he was one of the oldest commanding officers of the original Australian force. He was relieved at the age of 50, and returned to South Australia to lead the public service before retiring as a brigadier general. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 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) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment/Weak oppose I'm a bit uncomfortable with documentation of the lead image:
    1. The fact that it is cropped from the original is not mentioned, nor is the original source uploaded and linked to. Indeed, given {{CSS image crop}}, I'm not quite sure we need an uploaded cropped image in the first place. A CSS-cropped image has the advantage of directly linking to the full image. That, however, is a highly technical solution, so having a crop is fine, but not an undocumented, "secret" crop.
    2. It seems strange to crop it, quite tightly, no less then immediately surround it with copious white space. A more generous crop would make the infobox look far less strange.
The other two images are fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Uploaded an uncropped original. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Alright, that deals with that. Image check passed. Thank you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Actually.. hold that for one moment. Let me check something: Australian photographs prior to 1955 are out of copyright, and he died in 1944, right? So what's preventing use of the rather more detailed image at ? It's a nice, big image, and I honestly can't figure out any way it could be in copyright barring some strange rule. @Crisco 1492: you see any issue with that being {{PD-Australia}} / {{PD-1996}}? For that matter, any reason we couldn't grab his official record from the same link? The Governmental copyright expired 50 years after its creation, and, as Price died in 1944, his copyright expired in 1995 - (see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Government-produced_works and the section below - the increase to 70 years was not retrospective) so URAA is perfectly fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a short novel by Evelyn Waugh, in which the author relives a real-life episode of temporary madness through his fictional counterpart, Gilbert Pinfold. Waugh chose to frame his experiences in the form of a black comedy. The book was greatly admired by his friends for its unshrinking honesty, but the critics and the public were less entranced. It is indeed a slightly odd work, but the quality of the prose surely redeems its faults. Read it (the book) when you can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. I have read it – about forty-five years ago. I found it more disturbing than funny. Time for another go, perhaps. Meanwhile, no hesitation in supporting the promotion of the article. Handsomely meets all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 22:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Like you, I first read it when I was probably too young to appreciate it fully; having gathered from critics that it was "brilliantly funny", I read for a long time looking for the first laugh. I found it on what is page 54 of my current Penguin edition: "Later Mr Pinfold tried to raise the topic of burial st sea, but this was not taken up with any enthusiasm". For some reason I still find that funny. Anyway, thanks for your discerning eye and kind comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. I haven't read it, philistine that I am. Shall do so one day. But the article I have read and reviewed on the talk page. I thought it a splendid piece, amply meeting FA standards, and have no qualms about echoing Tim's support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review comments & support here. I hope you do get round to reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Ordealevwaughcover.jpg: source link returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have replaced the broken link with a working link to the image of the book's cover. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

As usual a fascinating read on an interesting topic. I've made some minor tweaks to, but feel to revert anything you don't like. Aside from that, a couple of things to look at:

Writing history

  • "September he told Ann Fleming": I think we should probably give a word or two as to who she is. You should also note that you give the full name "Ann Fleming" on each of the three occasions you name her.
  • I have described her on first mention as Waugh's "friend", and have added a footnote giving details who she was. I'd rather leave her as "Ann Fleming" on the subsequent mentions, as to refer to "Fleming" might perplex readers. I hope I'm not in breach of some gender equality rule lately imposed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rebecca West and Pan Books.[n 5] an ..." I'm not sure what punctuation you want there, but it isn't a full stop!

Critical reception

  • Is there a reason that New Statesman isn't linked? It looks like the other publications are.
  • Now linked

That's all from me. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this input. I have made the necessary fixes as noted above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's resident expert on penis comics, I hereby present the grandaddy of all penis comics—and the work on whose shoulders squarely lays the blame for the 40+-year fad in confessional comics that at times threatens to glut and drown the whole field of English-language arts comics. The work's protagonist-author unknowingly suffers from an obsessive–compulsive disorder which results in intrusive thoughts that make him see everything even vaguely phallic—including his own fingers—blasting every religious object in sight with sinful "pecker rays". This editor's last "penis comics" nomination somehow survived an initial onslaught of sensible opposition—hopefully the sheer proliferation of penises in this one will ensure the community will not allow another such error. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry[edit]

This seems close to being an FA.

  • The content of the lead does not match the weight of the content in the article. Perhaps something about style could be added to the lead, or perhaps the synopsis is overly detailed in the beginning. Or perhaps it is fine as it is.
    • Hmm ... I'm not sure how best to sum up the visual style. Did you have anything in mind? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Justin Green (1972) Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary splash page.jpg needs information about the appropriateness of the resolution.
  • I would like to see the number of pages in the book in the infobox.

I do not wish to review this further, but after reading the article for fun, it seems to me to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Another reviewer should do fact checking and think about what could have been added but is not present. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) and Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All is Metallica's debut and the album that heralded the forthcoming thrash and extreme metal scenes. I've presented the events that preceded its creation and the atmosphere during recording. There's also the music and lyrics analysis, as well as the tour that occured after the album's release. Though the album did not have a successful commercial run in its initial days, it aged well and is regarded as one of the best representative of thrash metal's early days. Hope to receive positive feedback from my peers.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by DannyMusicEditor[edit]

Support (at the moment) - It does not seem to miss anything essential. Beautiful work on the prose. Sources are all good. I'll check images and certification refs in a moment, because I see Master of Puppets had some problems in that area, but I'm liking this so far. I'm confident that this is going to go very well. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, I don't know if I'm missing something, but I'm not finding anything mentioned about this album charting in the UK or Australia according to the refs provided. Seems the only problem I can see at the moment. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Danny, thanks for the support. Unfortunatelly, the album didn't chart in the United Kingdom and Australia, therefore they aren't in the charts.--Retrohead (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well if that's true, then I think I'll go ahead and remove the positions that were provided for those territories. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood you. I see now that you were talking about mentioning the charts in the prose. I have little information on how the album performed in those territories (sales on a week-to-week basis, year-end charts, etc.) so don't see where/why would I put it.--Retrohead (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No. What I'm saying is, the references provided for the UK and Australian peak chart positions say nothing about those spots. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I copied the positions from Metallica discography. I don't know why Kill 'Em All isn't present on the British chart, but my guess would be that they only rank the top 100. This album unfortunatelly didn't break into that area.--Retrohead (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I found alternative sources in the discography. Apparently, they have a book citation[1] for Australia's position, and for the UK position, they have a Chart Log tracking sales from 1994-2010.[2]DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok Danny, I've applied the sources you provided to the article (big thanks for that!).--Retrohead (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Best of luck! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review
Ok, the sections are now filled.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Went with the same format as "The Four Horsemen" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Background and recording
Remember that this section is about the background of the album (how were the songs composed, how was the lineup formed, how was it recorded, etc), not about all the history of Metallica at the time. For the most part, both things are the same, but some portions (such as Mustaine breaking a string during a tour, or who gets to play with Saxon) go a bit off-topic, as they are not related to the creation of the album. The captions of both photos should be shorter, and should link the name of the person seen in them (this does not count for the limits on links to a same article). Besides, if the captions mentions two people, it must be clear who is the one of the photo (that, or rewrite the caption to mention only the man in the photo). You and me can easily recognize Ulrich and Mustaine even in a photo without context; but a featured article will be read by many people, including people with limited or no knowledge about thrash metal. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
See what you mean. I've corrected the image descriptions, writing the band members with full names and adding "pictured" in brackets.--Retrohead (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff[edit]

  • References 13,22, and 47 do not link properly to their bibliography entries.
Thanks for the note Bollyjeff, it is corrected now.--Retrohead (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference 27 has incorrect date.
  • Reference 31 does not say anything about "fake crowd noise".
  • Why isn't ref 45 a book source in the bibliography?
I moved it there.
  • Reference 47 can have a date of 1983 at least; it says issue 1.
Added the release date of the first issue (August 1983)
  • Reference 49 is dead.
Replaced it with a book reference.
  • The images of Ulrich and Mustaine have long unsourced captions with unclear wording.
Sourced them. What did you find awkwardly worded?
"picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana, who had a list of names" maybe could be "picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana's list of names" and "Ulrich suggested [the name] Metal Mania". "Mustaine brawled drunken" is perhaps not the best grammar. Drunkenly? "Was involved in a drunken brawl" is perhaps better.
Ok, did the copyediting as you suggested.
  • "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" -> "New Wave of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM)" and/or provide the link at first occurrence of NWOBHM.
  • Song clips also include un-sourced text.
  • Music and lyrics - switches from talking about "Hit the Lights" to "The Four Horsemen" mid-sentence. I got lost reading that. Please separate better. Same thing on "Motorbreath" and "Jump in the Fire". And "Phantom Lord" and "No Remorse". And every other song; a really awkward style to my eyes.
Separated them with fullstop.
  • Touring - "In late June," Year is needed. Last year mentioned was 2010
  • Any way to get a picture of that alternative album cover?

--BollyJeff | talk 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thunderbirds (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

My second Featured Article nomination after five years, for programme that is 50 years old this year. Promoted to Good Article status in December, it has since been copy-edited several times and provides – in my opinion, at least – a comprehensive treatment of the subject's main elements (particularly its production) and appropriate summary treatment of its sub-elements. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review
File:Thunderbirds logo.jpg is a non-free image, and seems to have a correct rationale. File:Hood and Scott Tracy puppets from Thunderbirds.jpg seems to be fine; the photo failed to include the full right puppet, but it's a minor detail and can not be fixed. File:Lorne Greene - 1969.jpg seems to be fine. File:Sean Connery 1964.png uses the "no copyright notice" license for a TV screenshot, which seems a bit innapropiate. File:Robert Reed 1971.JPG seems to be fine. File:Adam Faith headshot.jpg seems to be fine. File:Charlton Heston - 1953.jpg seems to be fine. File:AnthonyPerkins.jpg uses a license that goes from 1923 to 1963, so we need the exact date to know if the image is covered by it or not ("the 1960s" is not good enough, because it may a moment between 1964 and 1969). File:Stourhead House (8349738431).jpg seems to be fine (it lacked a FOP license, but I added one). File:RP1357 p8 Soyuz Rocket.svg needs more information: as detailed in the license, the NASA host images of the Soviet program, which may not be in the public domain. File:ThunderbirdsFAB (Cropped).jpg seems to be fine. Cambalachero (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Are the characters named after the astronauts in-story? If someone does not know about them, is the TV series explicit in that point? Some words and expressions are a bit puffery, such as "Unknown to the rest of the world" or "the force behind"; use simpler terms. Do we really need so many trivial details about the cars? Name and pilots should be enough. Same goes for the overly detailed info about the defenses of the island or the motivations of the heroes and villains: you have to use a summary of the important and defining info. The last two paragraphs (analysis of the continuity snarls on the date and the hidden meaning of the call) are not needed and should be removed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, try to avoid the use of parentheses for sentence-long comments. It's better to just reformulate them as new sentences. In the second, "The local authorities..." is a 4-lines long sentence, try to reformulate it. In the third, do not include wikilinks inside of quotations. The sentence that mentions Bonanza should end there, and the rest be another sentence. World War II is far more common than "second world war". I'm not sure if the word "illusion" is appropiate. Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, try to avoid the use of parentheses. "(which were designated "A" and "B")" can easily be a text written after a comma. As for units, please choose one and use it from the them on, there's no need to keep giving numbers in both systems all the time. Watch out for overly long sentences. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons should be clearly described as such when linked, not linked under the name "new concept" (the reader must have it clear what is the link that he would follow). Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Casting and characters
The "Other occupation(s)" field is an unneeded second field for in-universe information, and makes the column too wide. "Role" should be enough. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Design and effects
Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The actors whose likeness has been used for inspiration seems a bit trivial to include in photos, specially if it is such a wide set of photos. Again, watch out for the use of parentheses. Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Special effects
"Special effects" is a common word and does not need to be linked. "evolved from his wish" does not sound like good writing. In "This decision was not informed by any expert mechanical knowledge on Meddings' part: "The model just looked better that way.", the quote doesn't really add much; just skip the intro and say directly that it was a personal preference. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Title sequence
Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
As pointed before, don't use wikilinks inside of quotations. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Nanking[edit]

Nominator(s): CurtisNaito (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article deals with the Battle of Nanking fought in December of 1937 between Japan and China, including its origins and aftermath.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I may or may not come back to do a full review. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
  • The name "Nanjing" should be mentioned and briefly clarified, especially since that's the spelling of the city's article and "Battle of Nanjing" appears with some frequency in a Google Books search
  • It would be helpful to give a capsule history of the Sino-Japanese War—no more than a paragraph, I'd say. The article starts bluntly with the fall of Shanghai and gives the reader no idea what significance that battle had or why the two nations were fighting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Done.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Iwane_Matsui.jpg: source link is dead and image is tagged as lacking author info. When/where was this first published?
  • File:Aerial_shot_of_Nanking_city_wall_1930.jpg: source link is dead and when/where was this first published?
  • File%3ABattle_of_China_Nanking.webm: is there a more specific source that could verify the licensing? Same with File%3ANanking_victory_parade.webm
  • File:IJA_tanks_attacked_Nanking_Chonghua_gate.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
  • File:Nanking_Massacre_victims.jpg: source link is dead and the uploader is not the author so the licensing is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I added the periods, swapped the first picture for a different one, and deleted the third picture. I specified the original source of the two videos, swapped the second to last photo for a different version, and added source information to the last photo.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Samuel J. Randall[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Samuel J. Randall, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, half-hearted presidential candidate, and a long-serving politician from my hometown, Philadelphia. The last biography in my long-running 1880 series, it contains a lot of tariff and monetary disputes that no longer fascinate the nation as they once did, but should (I hope) be an enjoyable read. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Coemgenus, is this a WikiCup entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry for the omission. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Coemgenus: Given he's not the main subject, let's go with that one. If you're interested in Blackburn, I'll do a full restoration of him for you, but he's not the main focus of the article by any means, after all, and we don't need a featured picture for every person mentioned in an FA, right? =) That said, I bet that lead image could be made an FP... But! We're going off-topic. Image issues sorted. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Only thing - and this is easy to make it work either way: CSS crop Blackburn (as now) or upload a crop as a new file? Normally, I'd say it doesn't matter, but we've cropped pretty heavily, so it might slim a few hundred kilobytes off the page if we did crop. On the other hand, I do like the functionality of clicking on the cropped image leading to the uncropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've seen CSS cropping, but I don't know how to do it. If you want to have at it, though, that's fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice. Really emphasises that magnificent mustache. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Money Inc.[edit]

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a professional wrestling tag team. It has been a Good Article for several years, and it should be featured because it is complete, reliably sourced, and well written. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an ambitious and capable Turkish soldier, whose tumultuous career in the collapsing Abbasid Caliphate led him to become the ruler of Egypt in 935–946 and founder of a dynasty that ruled much of the Middle East until 969. The article relies heavily on Jere L. Bacharach's 1975 monograph, which is the most comprehensive study to date, but complements this with several other related sources. It passed a thorough GA review and had a very smooth MILHIST A-Class review, with only minor additions/tweaks since then, so I feel confident that it meets FA criteria. Constantine 20:46, 26 June 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) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned, though the maps are a bit difficult to read at that text size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review and, having checked all additions/changes since then, reiterate the gist of what I said there:

  • Although I know very little about the period in question, the content seems well-written, comprehensive, neutrally presented, and reasonably easy to follow.
  • Image licensing looks good to me.
  • Source-wise, again given the caveat of not being an expert, the references seem reliable enough.
  • Just one thing re. a post-ACR addition: He played a major role in the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months thereafter until the arrival of reinforcements from Egypt that defeated the Qarmatians -- not sure I quite follow this so pls confirm for me and perhaps we can reword a bit... he was defeated in his particular battle of the Qarmatian attack on Damascus, but the attack as a whole was successful, and he was the given charge of Damascus with a Qarmatian garrison that was eventually defeated by the Egyptian reinforcements? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello Ian and thanks for the review! I've rephrased the section in question: the Qarmatians defeated Tughj in battle outside Damascus, but he was nevertheless able to hold the city against them until such time as reinforcements arrived. Constantine 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah-ha, I'd got the impression he was on the side of the Qarmatians! I think your wording when it was at ACR, mentioning him "repelling" the Qarmatians, made clear whose side he was on ("major role in the attack" is ambiguous at best). Your latest reword is a bit clearer but could it be tweaked thus and still reflect the sources: "He played a major role in repelling the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months until, with the help of reinforcements from Egypt, he drove the Qarmatians away"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. The previous FAC was closed simply by lack of reviews. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by SuperMarioMan

  • Infobox image caption: This is almost as large as the image itself, and arguably overlong given that Template:Infobox television contains a "Starring" parameter. Is there any way that it could be shortened?
  • Past/present tense: A recurrent (but minor) issue is the article's use of past tense to describe in-universe detail. Example sentences include "The resulting parental dispute, the love triangle of the main characters and 1980s nostalgia were frequent plot elements, and story arcs related to school bullying and LGBT rights were also featured." (in the lead section) and "The plots included characters and situations for all ages, and the series' general tone was family-friendly." (Reception). As with the plot section, these should really be in the present.
  • "Graduados was broadly successful, prevailing in the ratings over the blockbuster competitive dance program Showmatch and the telenovela Sos mi hombre." (lead section). For "broadly", do you mean "widely" (they're not synonymous)? "Broadly", meaning "largely" or "generally", seems ill-fitting given the stated ratings and awards successes. What does "blockbuster" mean in this context?
  • "Although Graduados (written by Ernesto Korovsky, Silvina Frejdkes and Alejandro Quesada) was primarily a comedy ..." (Production) – reads awkwardly. It would be better to state the writers' names elsewhere, outside brackets.
  • "Los Pericos sent a cease and desist letter to the production team and complained on Twitter about the episode, with Bahiano dismissing their reaction as jealousy." "with ... -ing" is an awkward construction. This may work better as two sentences.
  • "Reception section": There is plenty of useful information about viewing figures and awards, but very little about critical reception. Are there any print or online television reviews of Graduados that could be summarised and presented here?
  • Audience ratings: Do you know how many viewers (in thousands or millions) a "point" equates to? (If this kind of information isn't available, no worries.)
  • "This was the first fictional same-sex marriage on Argentine television since it was legalized, reflected the growing acceptance of sexual freedom in Argentina." When was it legalised?
  • Cast section: This consists solely of a table, which should probably be re-written as prose using the "actor as character" style. Also, shouldn't this section be further up the page? Its positioning between "Reception" and "Other media" is a little unusual; immediately after the plot section seems the most natural place for it.

I'll post some other comments and suggestions after re-reading the article a few more times. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Giant mouse lemur[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a little-understood genus of nocturnal lemur form Madagascar. This is my second attempt at FAC with this nomination, after the first one was suspended due to insufficient feedback. Hopefully more people will take interest this time. – Maky « talk » 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - My comments during the last nomination were solved, so I have little to add, but I will contribute with an image review below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • All photos appear to be selfmade by Wikimedia or Flickr users, and have appropriate licenses. The two illustrations are also appropriately sourced and licensed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This is a well prepared article by an experienced editor and I can't find much to criticize. I do not have access to the two heavily cited books and thus cannot check the content. I've made a few edits to the article - please check that you agree.

Thanks for the review and help on finding all those typos! I really appreciate it. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "further to the north in the Sambirano and Sahamalaza regions." I don't think you should use the word region - for administrative purposes Madagascar is divided into 22 regions and these don't include Sambirano and Sahamalaza.
Hmmm... That's what the sources call them. The sources may be referring ecological regions or botanical regions. I've done my best to fix it. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "and around Ambato in northern Madagascar,[8][15] part of the Sambirano region.[8]" I cannot find this Ambato. There is a district of fr:Ambato-Boeny more to the south. Is it near the town of Ambanja on the Sambirano River?
All I know for certain (per one of the sources) is that it's in northwestern Madagascar. (I fixed the article from saying "northern".) Sometimes finding towns in Madagascar is like trying to find Springfield in the United States... but without online or comprehensive print sources. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't see it here. Aa77zz (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've tried finding towns in Madagascar using online maps, and it is very difficult to find anything with absolute certainty. I did a search and found a few maps that pinpointed regions in the northwest, but "Ambato" was not named on the map. Other maps point to an Ambato near the Antananarivo, near the center of the island. It seems like there's also one or more Ambato rivers, so it might be referring to the region around one of those. It's hard to say. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence "The southern limit of its range is the Maeverano River and extends to the Mahavavy River in the north." sounds odd to me. Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are these articles useful?
This source appears to reiterate everything already noted in other sources and this article. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This article goes into slightly finer details about the social structure of the northern giant mouse lemur. However, because this is a genus-level article, I think it should be saved for the species article. – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 08:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those articles, though! – Maky « talk » 02:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - the article satisfies the criteria. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Another article that has just been published:

  • Rode-Margono, Eva Johanna; Nekaris, K. Anne-Isola; Kappeler, Peter M.; Schwitzer, Christoph (2015). "The largest relative testis size among primates and aseasonal reproduction in a nocturnal lemur, Mirza zaza". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22773.  See also undated BBC article here. Aa77zz (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw that yesterday. I'll add the information after work. – Maky « talk » 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • read through this the other day, was on a smartphone and forgot to log in and comment...returning now.....looking good....
Giant mouse lemurs are relatively small cheirogaleids,[9] though they are more than three times larger than the smallest members of the family, the mouse lemurs - I think the "Though" works better at the front of the first clause rather than the second.
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Their tail is bushy and long, measuring around 300 mm (12 in), which is longer than their head-body length, which averages 233 mm (9.2 in) - the two "which"s are a little disconcerting, could be reworded to something like, "At around around 300 mm (12 in), their bushy and long tail is longer than their head-body length, which averages 233 mm (9.2 in)"
Great catch and excellent suggestion. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The northern giant mouse lemur also has a shorter tail, shorter canine teeth, and is generally larger. - you'd generally say it was larger first (the most obvious attribute) and then the other traits.
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

These are just quibbles though and easy to fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your helpful comments. – Maky « talk » 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dave Gallaher[edit]

Nominator(s): Shudde talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Dave Gallaher, the Irish-born captain of the first New Zealand national rugby union team to tour the British Isles and France. He was subjected to considerable criticism during the tour for what the British press considered unsportsmanlike play. Prior to playing international rugby he served in the Second Boer War, and later served in France during the First World War where he was killed at Passchendaele. Shudde talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Dave_Gallaher.jpg: per the tag, you'll need to indicate what steps you've taken to try to establish the author's identity. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I have done what I can to identify the photographer, and have fixed that caption. -- Shudde talk 05:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No. 450 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the first fighter squadron raised by Australia under the Empire Air Training Scheme during World War II, and Rupert and I hope to make it the first such article in WP to achieve FA-Class. Operating P-40 Kittyhawk fighter-bombers, No. 450 Squadron saw action in North Africa and Italy before its disbandment at war's end. In the former theatre it earned its nickname of The Desert Harassers thanks to none other than Lord Haw-Haw. The article history and talk page speak to the number of people who've helped get it to this stage, and we thank them all, along with our Milhist A-Class reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Well done. Very few comments.
  • This seems to be something of a sandwich of material related to No. 450 on either side of a fair amount of background. Would it be feasible to bring the 450 material together?
    • Fair enough, have started with 450 and then moved onto EATS, but it could be the other way round if that seems like it would work better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Middle East
  • "the troopship Queen Elizabeth" granted, but would it be possible to note that she was a converted passenger liner?
    • Can you suggest how you'd put it, as it might be a mouthful to get "troopship" and "converted passenger liner" in there together? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rommel" should probably be linked.
    • Nicely spotted, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "which dropped incendiary, anti-personnel and high explosive bombs, for more than an hour. " Not sure the final comma is really needed.
    • Agree, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Because the personnel camp had been placed some distance from the operations facilities, " this strikes me as unnecessarily jargony.
    • Had a go, let me know if you think it can be improved further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "became covered with seawater" in other words flooded. See above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talkcontribs)
    • Agree, done -- tks for your review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 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) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:450SqnRAAFCrest.png: bit confused here. You've got an older, black-and-white version of this badge which is claimed as PD - when did the design change? Its overall appearance is quite similar. Also, source link is dead
    • Tks for reviewing the images, Nikki. Boy, that one didn't take long to go dead -- anyway, Rupert's updated with an archived link now. Re. design change (or more exactly going from rough design to 'official' design) I don't know, so I opted for for the usual FUR for crests on the latter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:No._450_Sqn_RAAF_Ops_Tent_1942.jpg: am I correct that this is the first publication of this image? If so, the given licensing is not correct. See Works created but not published. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Well I think the Australian PD notice is still correct because it was taken before 1955, so I guess you mean the issue is satisfying all three PD-1996 clauses? Correct, this would be the first publication, so what licensing would you suggest? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It's an interesting case in that the Australian notice is correct, but despite the fact that this would have been PD in Australia before the URAA date the American copyright is still problematic. The easiest solution would be to find out who holds the copyright. If we don't know who owns the copyright, or if the copyright holder is not you and did not die over 70 years ago, quite likely we can't use the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Hmm. Well I own the photo through right of inheritance but I can't say with any certainty who took the photo, so though he might well have died 70+ years ago given the vicissitudes of war, we can't say that for certain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 427[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the second busiest freeway in Canada. I recently put subjected this to ACR so it should be pretty polished. Hopefully it will attract more attention than my previous nomination Floydian τ ¢ 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note -- Floydian, per FAC instructions, when a review has been archived you're expected to wait two weeks before nominating any other article (not just the same one), unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. We hadn't caught this one before it attracted some commentary so will leave it open, but pls follow the instructions in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I apologize, as you'll see on my talk page I did not notice that stipulation, but when I was informed, I requested a hall pass since my last FAC only failed due to going stale. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this at the mentioned ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that I did an image review at the ACR - Evad37 [talk] 13:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per my ACR review, though I wish the shields and labels had been added to the map, so users not familiar with the area know what they are looking at. --Rschen7754 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cobblet[edit]

  • How does one define "four-level interchange"? This only appears in the lead and isn't explained in the text, and looking at the interchanges themselves I'm not sure how one arrives at such a conclusion. Is there a source for this terminology? Stack interchange suggests that there's only one such interchange in Canada, the 407-400 interchange. And if they're not four-level interchanges then I'm not sure they're all that notable as the construction of the Allen Road-401 interchange (for example) predates the 1967-1971 timeline given (although the History section seems to suggest these interchanges did exist earlier in perhaps a less complex configuration – perhaps this could be clarified).
  • I simply reworded this to say they are two of the largest in the province. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Run-on sentence in the second paragraph of the lead (the second sentence). Rexdale refers to northern Etobicoke, not western; the reference to it should be removed. Also is Claireville big enough to be worth mentioning? Maybe the newly built suburb of Ebenezer, Brampton is a better choice?
  • Reference 2 (the MTO AADT counts pdf) is broken.
Route description
  • "QEW / Gardiner Expressway" does not always appear with a spaced slash. Frankly I'm not sure this construction is necessary in the situations where it's used in this article – is there a problem with referring to them as two distinct expressways? If you're trying to allude to the fact this section of the Gardiner used to be part of the QEW, I'm not sure that's necessary either.
  • the 427 is the dividing line between the two, so I'm not sure what would be a simpler construct. Any thoughts? - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • While the statement at the end of the second paragraph is undoubtedly true, pointing to a road map as a reference for the intentions of the people who designed the highway is inappropriate.
  • Actually, unlike the 401, the design of the 427 inherently limits vehicles to the appropriate carriageway because there aren't numerous transfers between the two. I do see what you mean however, and I'll see if I can find a good source for this. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Whenever I've heard the expression "The Basketweave" on Toronto traffic radio it's always referring to the one on the 401. I think MapArt maps also explicitly label the 401 structure as such, but not the 427 one. Suggest removing if no reliable source can be found for referring to this structure as "the Basketweave", particularly since the wikilink redirects to the article on the 401.
  • "from express to collector lanes, or vice versa" seems clumsy. How about "between express and collector lanes"?
  • Avoid the use of "complicated" and "sprawling" to describe interchanges unless there are reliable sources for these labels. The complexity of these interchanges can be expressed without resorting to peacock words – for example it could be noted that the 427-401 interchange is essentially a six-way interchange between the 427, 401, Highway 27 and the Richview Expressway stub. Also the source for the size of the 427-401 interchange given in the History section should be given here too.
  • By "demarcation line" do you mean the municipal boundary? This is also mentioned at the beginning of the next paragraph.
  • "as it drains" should more precisely be "where it drains". Also this is the West Humber, not the Humber itself, as noted in the History section.
  • "undeveloped area" – judging from the latest satellite maps this no longer seems accurate.
  • Expressions like "two-lane" and "four-lane" should be consistently hyphenated.
  • I removed the hyphen, as I've been told it should only be used in instances such as "four-laned" or "four-laning", but not "four lane". - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For clarity, "minister" should be "Minister of Transportation".
  • The heading "Upgrade to Collector-Express" might be better phrased as "Upgrade to collector-express system" or simply "Widening".
  • Done, used "Expansion". - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the largest interchange in Canada" – at the time, or is this still true?
  • AFAIK, haven't seen any claims raised otherwise. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dixon/Airport Road" should take a spaced slash.
  • What does "defaulted" mean here?
  • I don't think "left-turn" needs a hyphen.
  • Weird that you mention the dates of construction of the interchanges with the 409 and 407 in the lead but not in this section.
  • I believe the construction of HOV lanes is currently ongoing, so use the present tense.
Exit list
  • "north (700 m (2,300 ft))" - maybe "north for 700 m (2,300 ft)" to avoid the double parentheses.

Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Made a number of fixes, with replies presented indented above. Still have a few points to address yet. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a short article about a very rare substance that does not naturally exist; 15 atoms have been synthesized in total since 2010, all decaying away in less than a second. The article is short, yet quite complete. The subject is quite technical, but I hope the article is readable; some efforts have been applied to assure that. The previous FAC highlighted problems in prose quality; this article has been copyedited (and updated) since then, so it should be okay in that respect now. Your comments are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading the summary above revealed the interesting detail about the number of atoms that have been synthesized, which I had missed in a couple of read-throughs of the article. I have added this to the lede. YBG (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here we have the most recent element to be discovered. I am certain that the global criteria (1d, 1e, 3 and 4) are satisfied; the prose criteria are mostly OK, though I have some qualms with the weight given to the two major topics (while 2c follows from citation templates, 2b is satisfied if the naming section is subsumed into history and 2a seems questionable given the higher weight on history rather than characteristics in the lead, though I'll pass over this for now). Criteria 1abc I haven't looked over yet; I have made some unifying edits in the meantime. Parcly Taxel 03:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. Your edits have been good so far; thanks for them as well. Naming was a separate section mainly because that's how things are in ununoctium, which is an long-standing FA. In general, I agree it belongs with after-discovery recognition. Regarding weight on topics in the lead, I think the history part is just the right size, but we have little data about this element, and while I'd like to expand this part, it's hardly possible. I mentioned the relativistic effects and added one sentence on oxidation states, but there's nothing more to say. We have too little data on chemistry (so we can't add generalized info, and adding separate bits of info is, you know, going into detail, not the right thing for the lead), and about physics, the situation is basically the same (we could add a couple of figures, but that is just going into detail as well).--R8R (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "only eight atoms have been synthesized," I think this is inaccurate. The synthesis of 8 has been recorded and reported. In theory more were possibly synthesized but detectors didn't catch them.
    Fair enough. I went with "have been synthesized and reported."
  • "The original experiment was repeated successfully in 2012" but 8 atoms were from 6 in 2010 and 2 in 2014. if it was successful why weren't any produced in 2012?
    A great one. Seven more atoms were produced in 2012.
  • "The beam is made in Russia " shouldn't this be past, or "would have been made"?
    Sure, let's go with past.
  • "The resulting nuclei become " there is something wrong with either the tense of the linking of this to the previous sentence
    I agree; I'll check the article history.
    I changed wording a bit; hopefully it's okay now.
  • "target would no " => would have?
    I agree; as a side note, this sentence has always been phrased somewhat differently, this must be a recent change I missed
  • "would remain " => would have remained?
    Same as above
  • "the world's most powerful for the synthesis of superheavy elements" is this true?
    Actually, this statement is intended to mean, "world's most powerful as of the experiment", I'll use another wording.
    I think I originally saw this statement in the press release dedicated to the discovery, but I can't find it, so I removed it. The current source only says, "one of the most powerful."
  • "matching their previous results" => how many new atoms did they get?
  • side question: how much "weaker" is the Darmstadt accelerator?
    I don't exactly know, but I'll check that. I remember reading some plans from the Darmstadt team to get a still more powerful accelerator; maybe their 2014 experiment was conducted using it.
    I can't find an exact answer. I've found that the Dubna accelerator deals with energies within the range of 3–29 MeV/nucleon; I can't find the press release, I think it may have to do with total maximum energies rather than per-nucleon ones, but since it can't be made sure (for now, at least), we'll go without it.
  • the chart image should clarify that known isotopes are those in framed squares
  • can the eV scale be rotated vertically?
    Yes: File:Valence_atomic_energy_levels_for_At_and_Uus.svg. The image was originally vertically aligned, and the change for horizontal aligning came later. It was made because the original image is disturbingly long, so it may not even fit into screen if your monitor resolution is low (unless we consider low scale, but then labels would be hard to read). Not great, really.
It is an svg, so all it needs is scale all the text 3x and it will look ok. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I just updated the file. I doubled the font size; however, I am somewhat doubtful if a change from the current horizontal file to an update vertical one would be an improvement at all. However, if you wouldn't agree with me, feel free to make the change or just let me know.
  • "The +7 state has not been shown—even computationally—to exist" if you put such atoms in very high fields you can ionize them beyond their valence electrons. I think the statement before should be fine-tuned a bit. Unless the ionization energy is so high that you break the nucleus apart (which should be way higher in energy imo) it does exist at least in theory
  • what is the ionic radius of Uus anion?
    Do you have an answer in mind? I generally agree this article could use more data, too bad so little is available at all. I'm sure that if I had seen a figure that important, I would've included it.
  • the decay chart in inaccurate since it is missing the Lw-266 path
    I sincerely believe it's better to show just the decay chain we already have (so it could support the text, since it is located near the part on discovery), and change the caption to match the context. So I went with "Decay chain of the ununseptium nuclei produced in the original experiment."
Meah, it is fine but see File:Ununoctium-294_nuclear.svg for a model to include both if you change your mind. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the fact these isotopes are not really needed, such updates would need to be made each time someone synthesizes another isotope the original nuclides, Uus-293 and Uus-294, could decay to. Like, say, Mt-277, which was first synthesized in 2012 as a decay product of Uus-293. So, to make sure the article is correct, someone would need to keep track in news on superheavy isotopes, especially now that ununseptium news won't be as important as they used to (the element is not as new as it was in 2010 or 2014 anymore). Sure, I get it we would need to keep track on news on whether the 2012 Dubna application is recognized by IUPAC or not, because it's an important part of the story for the element. The exact end of the alpha decay chain isn't.

Nergaal (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Great comments, thanks for taking your time. I'll try to reply to them sometime soon, hopefully tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ladislaus I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a 11th-century King of Hungary who consolidated the Christian monarchy. He is considered as "the incarnation of the late-medieval Hungarian ideal of chivalry". Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note -- Borsaka, per FAC instructions, when a review has been archived you're expected to wait two weeks before nominating any other article (not just the same one), unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. We hadn't caught this one before it attracted some commentary so will leave it open, but pls follow the instructions in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose, sorry for it. I did not notice the rule you referred to above. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good, but not without issues. If you're using a PC, click the "Ctrl" and "F" buttons simultaneously. In the little search box that appears at top right, enter the word "according". You've used this word 30 times. You need to inject variety, style and a bit of panache; you must avoid repetition.

For example:

    • 1. According to the Illuminated Chronicle, King Solomon took refuge in the Holy Roman Empire.
    • 2. The Illuminated Chronicle describes how King Solomon sought refuge in the Holy Roman Empire, observing how the king ...
    • 3. The Illuminated Chronicle supports this thesis and discusses at length King Solomon's journey to the Holy Roman Empire. Chapter XXX, for example, mentions the king's ...
    • 4. King Solomon then fled his homeland to seek refuge in the Holy Roman Empire, an episode recounted in great detail in the Illuminated Chronicle.
    • 5. The Illuminated Chronicle expands on commentary provided by other contemporary sources, observing that King Solomon not only sojourned en route in France but also ...
    • 6. A wealth of information about King Solomon's flight to the the Holy Roman Empire is provided in the Illuminated Chronicle: chapter XXX, for example, notes that ...
    • 7. The king's journey to the Holy Roman Empire is the focus of several chapters in the Illuminated Chronicle: chapter XXX, in particular, offers invaluable commentary on Solomon's ...
    • 8. While King Solomon's travails en route to the the Holy Roman Empire are recorded in the Illuminated Chronicle, many present-day historians have argued that ...
      • Singora, thank you for your review and suggestions. I will try to modify the text, although it would be difficult, taking into account WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • The deal, very simply, is that you can't use the construction "according to" 30 times in an article this size. The problem has nothing to do with original research. Your prose -- as it stands -- it sub-standard. Any reasonably competent newspaper, magazine or journal editor would throw it out. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll check back tomorrow and perhaps offer more feedback.

Notes RE: Bibliography Singora (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • 1. Just noticed that while all books show the publisher, none show the place of publication. This needs to be added.
    • Yes, you are right. The place of publication is never shown. According to WP:CITE, the city of publication can be added, but it is only an option. I would prefer not to add. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Go with the flow. Everyone else adds the place of publication. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but I think that all sources cited can be identified based on the data provided in the "Sources" section. Providing additional information would not significantly improve the "user-friendliness" of the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 2. The The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles (Gesta principum Polonorum) is an early 12th century source. It's very old, but surely secondary rather than primary.
    • I think The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles is clearly a primary source: it is a chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You're wrong, but I won't argue. Seek clarification from a guy called JohnBod. He seems to understand these things. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • @Johnbod:, I would highly appreciate your comments on the above issue. Is The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles a primary source? Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 3. A few references (the Illuminated Chronicle, for example) are not linked to the bibliography.
    • Yes, none of the primary sources are linked to the bibliography. Primary sources can rarely be "forced" into the citation templates. In order to be consequent, I would avoid to link any of them. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not about "forcing". Just use the correct templates. All citations can be linked to the bibliography. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I would be really grateful if you could provide an example. For instance, the Illuminated Chronicle looks especially problematic for me. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Notes RE: Structure Singora (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • 1. I would encourage you to add a section entitled Historical sources. See, for example, Spanish conquest of Guatemala. You could use this section to introduce primary sources and acquaint readers with a few of the more scholarly secondary sources.
Thank you for your suggestion. My concern is that this section could easily be against WP:NOR. As far as I know there is no scholarly works dedicated to the historians who wrote of Ladislaus's life. I have no information of any scholarly works of the primary sources of Ladislaus's life either. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I disagree, but good luck with your nomination. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Béla_elnyeri_a_koronát.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info
  • File:King_St._Ladislaus.jpg is claimed as own work, but also lists an author who is not the uploader
  • File:Derzs4.jpg is claimed as own work but the author is not the copyright holder
  • File:Laszlo-Coronation-ChroniconPictum.jpg needs a US PD tag (easiest just to change life+70 to life+100)
  • File:Zaruke_hrvatskog_kralja_Zvonimira_Celestin_Medović.JPG needs a US PD tag and is not own work
  • File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: where is this data from?
  • File:LaszloOradea.jpg needs a US PD tag and should also include the photographer's license
  • File:Szent_László_legenda_4.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Fakirbakir, can I seek your assistance? Köszönet. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 science fiction action comedy film. Truly one of a kind; people either love it or don't get it at all. I've loved it since the first time I watched it as a child. Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Freikorp, is this a WikiCup entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel like the critical reception section is too short. It needs to be expanded. (By the way, I hated the movie, though that's just me.) ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: Yeah good point, I added four more reviews. Better? (Haha yeah you either love it or hate it, you don't find many people sitting on the fence about this one lol)Freikorp (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Do you have any more information on the box office performance? If not, I think you should merge the section with another. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Editorofthewiki: Found a tiny bit more info, specifically what it grossed in its opening weekend, but it wasn't much. I've merged it with above section. There's plenty of sources that give the box office results a line or two of comment, saying it "tanked at the box office' or something similar etc, do you think I should add a sentence like that or just leave it as the raw facts? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Let me know if you have any other comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon Nabi[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a powerful and damaging typhoon over 10 years ago. I noticed that it could be a ten year anniversary storm in a few months, so I wanted to nominate it. Other hurricane editors agree it's likely the best source of information for this particular typhoon, which I believe is one of the most important criteria for an FAC. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SuperTyphoonNabi.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Ramsey (1926)[edit]

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first murder investigation on an Indian Reservation by what would later become the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I believe that it meets the criteria for featured article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

  • This one will make a great TFA ... Native Americans, the Supreme Court, the genesis of the FBI, a crime investigation ... this is going to appeal to a broad range of readers.
  • "United States ... United States ... United States": opinions differ on WP. Outside WP, it's no contest. U.S. (or US) has more support as the adjective (with specific exceptions). I made the edit.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Would suggest making the map slightly larger
  • File:Brown_hale.jpg: when/where were these images first published? Image description states pre-1923 but gives no details. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Increased map to 400px.
  • I'm not sure, but since Brown was killed in 1921, it had to be prior to 1923. The photo is from the FBI files on the case. GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It had to be taken prior to 1923, but need not have been published then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I hadn't thought of that. What should I do to fix it? GregJackP Boomer! 03:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Try to track down either the original publication or more details about the source - this site attributes the images to, so you might be able to find some information there. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I looked there, no luck. I'll keep looking, but until then, I've removed the photo. GregJackP Boomer! 17:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm concerned at the extent to which this article relies on primary sources. Steve Smith (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Steve Smith, I'm sorry, I'm not clear on exactly what your concern is. MOSLAW provides that Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority. Here, I have tried to make sure that every time I used a primary source I also used a secondary source for the same fact. For example, there are several laws dealing with Indians which are cited, and in each of these there is also a cite to either Kappler's book or another secondary source. The same thing where a case is cited, for example at fn47 the Ramsey case is cited, along with Donald Fixico's book. The use of both types of sources is comparable to Ex parte Crow Dog, United States v. Lara, and Menominee Tribe v. United States; all of which are featured articles and all of which have been Today's Featured Article on the main page. If you have some specific concerns I would be happy to address those. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, acclaimed effort by both critics and fans. I think it meets the FA criteria and hope to receive positive feedback.--Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maury Markowitz[edit]

Support: Left my comments two rounds ago, has only improved since. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Teh Thrasher[edit]

Support: The article is well written, plus Retrohead has put a lot of effort into it.-Teh Thrasher 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

Support: All of my points have been addressed; good job. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • "The April 2006 edition of Kerrang! was dedicated to the album and offered readers the cover album Master of Puppets: Remastered" - The source is a forum post from an anonymous source stating that the album is coming. Can we get something more substantial here? Also, it looks like the albums were actually given away, not just 'offered'.
Replaced it with and corrected the wording.
  • "The album was less successful on international level, entering the top 40 on the German and Swiss album charts in its inaugural year" - on an international level. Also, doesn't the source show top 40 on several other countries as well?
Copyedited it and added other countries.
  • I still believe now, as I did during another review, that the second paragraph of 'Commercial performance' belongs under 'Accolades and legacy'. I also think that 'Accolades and legacy' should be a full section,coming after 'Commercial performance'. If this is not clear, I can make the change myself if you want.
Thank you.
  • Source 11, "Ulrich bored Hammett in Metallica's Puppet sessions" is dead.
It seems the website is under reconstruction. Is this appropriate for use?
I fixed it using wayback machine.
  • The 'Background and recording' section could use a link to underground music for American underground scene.
  • How are you getting the years 2004 and 2008 etc for the international chart peaking from the given source? I can understand certifications happening years later, but chart peaks??
If you click on any flag, you can read the information related to the album in that country. For example, the album peaked number 67 in 2010 in Italy and stayed on the chart for 1 week.
Thanks, its hard to believe, but I guess its true. One more thing: Given the high total sales in Canada, did it ever make the charts there?
Yes, thanks for reminding me. Peaked number 52 in 1988.
  • I cannot confirm all the certifications in the table. For example, ARIA shows Death Magnetic, not MoP; New Zealand is a dead link.
I think New Zealand works now. Check number 33, the album is marked as platinum with a silver bar. I removed Australia, it seems MoP is not certified there yet.

BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

There are a few small issues from my previous review:

  • "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot? unless you are an expert in the field this says little. Give some comparison to mainstream music.
220 bpm is a metronomical measure for tempo; I've linked beats per minute to provide the reader further information. Fast and slow are relative terms (depends what you compare). For example, Slayer's "Necrophobic" is 248 bpm, and Metallica's Hit the Lights is about 160 bpm.
I wasn't talking about me. I was pointing out that a reader going through the article would have no idea what 220 bpm means. Consider having a footnote or something that gives a reference point. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, further information is provided at the link.
  • "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean? jargon should be at least wikilinked
  • "1986 is" never start with a number => please show me a couple of FAs with numbers starting a sentence
I've asked Greg Fasolino, who works as a professional copyeditor, and he said there's nothing wrong in starting the sentence with a year. 1986 is not used as a number, but as a year, which counts as a noun.
Even if it is ok, does the sentence have to start with a number? Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You want me to write "Nineteen eighty six is seen as a pinnacle year for thrash metal"?
  • accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together => I have a feeling that many of the acknowledges this album received were put together more than a decade after the album came out. this would be worthwhile clarifying in the text because it shows a long-term impact, as opposed to just trendiness of the likes of People's Awards and crap
Well, I can insert years if you insist, but they are already given in the "date" field of the references.
People reading the text wont check for date in the reference. I think giving some sense of when were these accolades given would put the awards in perspective. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo => still think the same. there can be reviews listed in the table that are not discussed in the text
The reviews by Spin, BBC Music, and Popmatters didn't grade the album, therefore they are not in the table.
  • how come the certifications list is only 4 entries long? I would have guessed to be much much longer
  • "after having been retired for a number of years" => why were "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired?
I assume because Metallica was promoting Load and Reload back in 1995–1997 and had to drop some of the older songs from the setlist.

Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Blastmaster11[edit]

This article has defiantly come a long ways now and I salute the work put into it. I noticed though that on several album GA's, such as Aaliyah (album), the Background and the Recording sections are separate. Perhaps the same could be done here? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Could do it, but it would be some five or six sentences into a section, which might give the reader a perception that it's not well researched.--Retrohead (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Borsoka[edit]

Upon Retrohead's request I read the article. It is well-written, interesting, neutral and well-researched article which also present media. I hope that it will be presented as a TFA on the main page after its promotion. My lack of knowledge of arts, music and heavy metal albums is the only reason that I do not state that I support its promotion: I cannot decide whether the article is comprehensive. Sorry, for it. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from L1A1 FAL[edit]

Overall, seems very well written! In fact, I learned something while reading the article (regarding the Mustaine/Leper Messiah controversy).

  • Kind of nitpicking, I know, but I think that the first sentence in the body should be perhaps toned back a bit (re: Kill Em All laying thrash foundations, other bands could arguable make that claim (i.e. Motorhead)), but it is sourced, so I don't see reason to remove it. Only thing for me is, change it to "American" thrash metal... its a little more consistent with the source, and there were earlier pioneers of thrash elsewhere.
  • In "Touring", in the first paragraph, the Osbourne stuff seems kind of broken up. Instead of:
" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7]
Maybe it would be better like this:
" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7] Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore."

Just seemed like the "Alcoholica" bit kinda broke up the middle of the paragraph there...

I'll probably add a couple more things as I see them, but that's all I got for now. Overall, seems very well written, it explores the background of the subject in-depth and seems to be well-sourced.

Additionally, it appears to meet all featured article criteria. Tenative Support, pending discussion of my commentary above.

--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey L1, thanks for the comments. I've switched the two sentences in "Touring" as you suggested. As for the first note, the second sentence states that "the album revitalized the American underground scene", implying that the first sentence is referring to the American thrash scene. I can add another "American" in the first sentence if you require, but I think it's not that necessary.--Retrohead (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the American thing... it is probably okay as is. You've done a very good job on this one. I fully support FA for this article--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992[edit]

Sorry for the long awaited review.. You did a fantastic job with this article and I applaud your hard work! I now support the article's promotion to FA status. Best, jona(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • What is tempo? Readers who do not know music terminology would not understand, even if its a term that you may believe is universal. A link would suffice.
  • A lot of repetition of the word "song" (Music and Lyrics) and "album" (Accolades and legacy)
Tried to compensate with "track" and "record".
  • Inconsistency with the spelling of beats per minute (see the last paragraph in Music and Lyrics as an example; 220 beats per minute vs 136-bpm)
Corrected, used the full term.
There's still one left in the same sentence. Best, jona(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Done with the 184 bpm too.--Retrohead (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)[edit]

Nominator: Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One of the 14 c.1821–1823 "Black Paintings" by Francisco Goya, who lived longer than he might have preferred, into an old age of significant physical and mental ill-health, and a social period when, after the enlightment, Spain in ways regressed with outbursts of dogma and social control that drew in a calculated way from medieval doctrine. Goya withdrew and went silent in his last years; all we have are the paintings which are often strikingly modern (Francis Bacon, who rarely praised anybody, was greatly influenced) but nobody really knows what Goya wanted to express or intended.

All we can do is project, and this is the finest single piece of that late period, in my openion. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Support with a couple of minor comments from Iridescent

  • "He wears a goat-like beard and horns, references to irrational animal instinct"—are they really references to animal instinct? Surely this was pretty much the universal visual shorthand for "demon" within Catholic imagery?
  • "The eyes of some figures emit beams of white light"—call me stupid, but I've looked at each figure and I can't see this.

No issue at all with supporting, even with the two above quibbles. Note that I haven't checked the sources, but I've no reason to doubt them. – iridescent 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I cant see anybody, ever, calling you stupid and have reworded the offending sentences. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I take it you never met Ottava, then? – iridescent 14:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Support with a disclaimer that I've made edits, but after basically a four or five year long peer review, per Iridescent, no issues supporting. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes its been a long one and you helped a lot. Thanks for the support. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Quinta_del_Sordo_1900.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Aquelarre_de_Laurent.jpg should identify copyright of original work and photo. Source link is dead, and what aspect of the image is reflected in the current licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Have added US PD to the first image; having difficulty with the second; will continue to search. Ceoil (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


  • I find this bit about "inversion" unclear, i.e. lacking context: "The earlier painting uses traditional imagery of witchcraft in that its depiction inverts traditional Christian iconography. The goat extends his left rather than right hoof towards the child, while the quarter moon faces out of the canvas at the top left corner." Traditional Christian iconography has goats extending right hooves, and quarter moons facing other directions... or what?
  • Now reading ...uses witchcraft imagery to invert traditional Christian iconography. I agree re material in the lead not in the body, will relocate. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The extensive quote from Stafford doesn't scan. The bold part is what doesn't scan, but the whole thing could stand to have more breathing room. Could you simplify it?: "Barbara Stafford said that Goya "brusquely [inlaid] spots of light within prevailing darkness [and] aqua-tinted and painted [verb or adjective?] visions [which] demonstrated the powerlessness of the unmoored intellect to unify a monstrously hybrid experience according to its own a priori transcendental laws.""
  • "His use of chalk for the preparatory drawings compounded the problem, as oil and chalk generally do not bind well." This is a bit of cheating as the article says earlier that he didn't use an underdrawing for this particular black painting. Is it possible that sources conflict or one source was just talking about the black paintings in general?
  • Corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know what "a pre-emptor of today's artistic sensibilities" means. I figured it meant exactly what you say in the bit that follows it: "and a precursor to works by modern artists...". If so it's redundant; if not could it be clarified?
  • Otherwise great work Ceoil. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, the second paragraph of the lead has more detail on the privateness of the black paintings than the "Background" section does and I think a couple of facts from that paragraph could be moved there, such as "They are not mentioned in his letters[6] and there are no records of him speaking of them.[7]"--which really is just more detail confirming the previous sentence. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Riggr, have fixed the Stafford quote and the pre-emptor claim. Working through your other points. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The inversion thing is mostly around left/right, espically around crossing of hands, orders of devils and saints. Now removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Your extensive c/e and guidance *much* appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
"'Contemporary photographs tended... - I'd probably change this to say, "Photographs from this period tended..." - due to the misinterpretation and misuse of "contemporary" to mean "modern".
Thats better, yes. Changed now. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, all looks in order....I couldn't find any other niggles though was tired when I read it...hmmm...will take another look a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Cas. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Support – Well up to standard. Comprehensive, well documented, good prose and of course beautifully illustrated. Tim riley talk 08:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Support - Amazing stuff, well done...Modernist (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Can't fault it even though I'm now cursed with a mental image of Ceoil in tiny speedos (long story, but at least I've hopefully spread that image to you, dear reader). Do The Dog next; I love that painting, even if he is sooo sad; I'm off to bleach my mind. Belle (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks Belle. Re the dog; try as we might to ressurect mr Yomangan, he seems to have passed onto pastures zenn. I do rememeber him producing a lazy bastards guide to FAC, and I suppose he should have been careful what he wished for; presumably the retirment was all part of a ruse. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Note -- I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an anti-LGBT motivated attack. The murder made headline news within Jamaica and attracted further press attention abroad. International human rights organisations highlighted the killing as a symptom of the problems surrounding the lack of LGBT rights on the island. This article failed to receive much attention when it was first nominated for FAC last year, but hopefully will receive more now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by BenLinus1214[edit]

Hi, this is my first FAC review, but I do GAs regularly, so this shouldn't be difficult. Let's get started!

  • The non-free image in the infobox doesn't have a very specific rationale. I'm not questioning the appropriateness of the image, but the rationale should be better.
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, I would replace "gender" with "biological sex" unless you feel a reason to use the former.
    • Part of the problem here is that we have no reliable source stating what Jones' biological sex was; I assume given the context of the events that he was biologically male, but lack any source that expressly states that. Conversely, given the fact that his name was "Dwayne" and his close friends referred to him using masculine pronouns, we can assume with some certainty that he identified as male. Thus I think that "gender" is more appropriate here, but am open to further discussion on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it's best to find a wording that avoids using either term? Maybe "when discovered"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I've gone with the following: "When a number of men at the party discovered that he was not a cisgender female, they confronted and attacked him." Do you think that that works ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I keep a database of articles on the Caribbean. Here I have found two articles that specifically state that she was a female but biologically male. This one from Policy Mic and this one from Maurice Tomlinson, possibly the best known Jamaican LGBT activist. Even though Maurice's piece states specifically Dwayne stated "I am a girl," and he is a RS, it is stated in a blog, which probably is not a RS for a FA. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about making a change to the article that replaces all male pronouns to female ones when referring to Jones throughout this article. Yes, they did say "I am a girl" when a mob confronted them, but given the context I really don't think that we can be sure that this was a genuine act of self-identification, given that it could well be an attempt to avoid being violently attacked. While I am 100% in favour of ensuring that Jones is described using their own gendered pronouns, I think it very important to note that Jones' close friend Khloe – a transwoman – was quoted as referring to "him". Given that Khloe would not only have had a very close understanding of Jones but that she would also have a strong appreciation of transgender issues, would she not have been cautious in ensuring that she used the pronoun that Jones preferred ? Given this, I think it more likely that Jones actually identified with male pronouns, at least at the time of their death. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you didn't mean for it to appear otherwise. As I said lower down I think you have masterfully addressed a situation that was vague to all parties involved. I don't know that there is another way you could address it other than as you have done. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "did not charge anyone" feels a little informal and does not include the important information that no one was even arrested. Especially given that the set of perpetrators is very clear, I would include that as well.
    • I've added that they did not arrest anyone, although have refrained from including the statement that the identify of the perpetrators is clear, because none of our sources actually state that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This article specifically states witnesses claimed they could not identify the perpetrators [1] SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "was picked up by media" is sort of informal--maybe "was widely discussed in media".
    • Changed to "reported on by media", as I am not sure that the story was necessarily "widely discussed" in UK and US media. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't a big deal, but instead of titling it "early life", maybe it could be "background"? (in articles like Murder of Leigh Leigh)
    • Personally I prefer "early life" here as I believe that it better reflects the section's contents but am open to the opinions of others on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Make it clear (per your source) that Jones was probably kicked out of the house when he began to express his sexuality openly.
    • I'm a little hesitant on this point. There are two sources testifying to the fact that Jones was kicked out of his father's home, but only one makes the motive of this explicit, stating that the father threw him out "when he began to flaunt his sexuality"; however given that we don't explicitly know what Jones' sexuality was that presents us with a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There are no in-wiki links on your references throughout—when they apply, maybe you could add links to pages?
  • Make the first sentence in the "Murder" section less convoluted and more active: "he dressed as a girl and attended the "Henessey Sundays" dance party with Keke and Khloe at a bar in the Irwin area."
    • I've made some small changes to this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Be more specific about what the "Henessey Sundays" party is.
  • Does that sentence need four cites after it?
    • I don't think that it does any harm leaving them in, although am open to other opinions on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For the second sentence, there might be some helpful links you could put, such as starting the sentence with "Jones successfully passed as a girl at the party".
  • Also, the Montego Bay picture would better fit the "Early life"/"Background" section than the Murder one.
  • Where's the bit about the friend attending church with Jones?
  • There's a sentence in both footnote 2 and footnote 5 about one of the perpetrators using a lighter to examine the size of Jones's feet--could you put that in?
  • "batty boy" is not a familiar epithet to many--of course, readers can just click the link, but it would be nice to specify that it is a Jamaican insult.
    • It now states that it is a "homophobic epithet". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "at which point" would be better than "at which"
    • This seems to have been changed as I cannot find any instance of "at which point" in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Specify who the report that no one helped Jones was from—Maurice Tomlinson, a Jamaican LGBT rights activist, per your source.
    • I'm not entirely sure if this is necessary, and worry that it might impeded the flow of the prose a little. Again, alternate opinions welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • @Midnightblueowl: That's true, but if you don't want to put that in, you should probably change the wording of the sentence. "There were reports" makes it sound a little vague if you don't put who reported this.
        • But it says "there were no reports" rather than "there were reports" here. So adding Thompson here would entail saying "Thompson stated that there were no reports...", which to my mind is just adding unnecessary information at this juncture in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • At the beginning of the investigation part, you could put a quote, as one is in your source.
    • Again, I'm not entirely convinced on this one because the quote from the police officer conveys pretty much exactly the same information as that which is already in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What "four homeless youths" are you talking about?
  • Also put that Tomlinson set up Dwayne's House.
    • As far as I can gather from the citation used, Tomlinson did not actually establish the Dwayne's House charity himself, but rather only commented that he was "working with" them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Tomlinson was heavily involved. This article states he was the "person pushing hardest for the shelter’s creation" but I believe the person who is actually functioning as the coordinator is Yvonne McCalla Sobers. [2] SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional link SusunW; I have added in to the article as an additional citation as to the establishment of the Dwayne's House charity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do any of the sources state where Keke was during all this?
  • For a more descriptive topic sentence on the "Reaction" section, I would expand it to something along the lines of "Jones' murder made headline news across Jamaica, drawing criticism from human rights groups and others and renewing the debate over LGBT rights in Jamaica."
    • My concern with this change would be regarding citations. We have one citation that states very clearly that "Jones' murder made headline news across Jamaica" but not ones that clearly express the latter information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It did make headlines across the Caribbean. It did not cause any groups except those already working with the LGBT communities to criticize other than a few personal statements written as opinion pieces or social media posts by known activists. Can't provide documents, because there aren't any actual groups who expressed outrage other than JFlag, Barbados Glad, Unibam, etc. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In the image caption, link to Portia Simpson-Miller.
  • I think the image is good, but could you mention something in the text from footnotes 13 and 14 about Miller and maybe group all three together? Currently, you only have something about Miller cited to footnote 17.
    • I'm a little hesitant about expanding the caption too much, but if you have any specific suggestions I'd be happy to discuss them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A few of the abbreviations for organizations aren't necessary, as you don't reference a lot of them again.
    • I have removed the abbreviations from the three instances where they are not repeated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For the Quality of Citizenship Jamaica quote, I would cut it down to make it sound less awkward (e.g. ending it after National Anthem).
    • I have edited this sentence so that this is no longer a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all I have! :) BenLinus1214talk 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214: thank you very much for taking the time to provide these comments. They have clearly enhanced the article in various different ways. If you feel like you would be willing to offer an opinion on whether you would support or oppose this page receiving Featured Article status then that would also be very helpful! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if any of that helps you. I think you have covered the situation quite well, given that even those close to the victim were not comfortable assigning labels. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support All my comments have been addressed in a timely manner and I think that it would make a very good featured article. BenLinus1214talk 20:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments form Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to undo any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments:
  • then made homeless by his father: kind of awkward wording
    • I've altered the wording to the following: "Jones was bullied in school and then forced out of his family home by his father at age 14. Homeless, he moved into a derelict house..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • When his gender was discovered: I'm not as well-versed as I could be in these issues, but this should be "biological sex" rather than "gender", no?
    • This issue was previously raised by BenLinus1214 above, so I have discussed it there - feel free to join in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • he was beaten, stabbed, shot, and run over by a car: the rest of the article avoids the serial comma—you'll have to settle on one style
  • The event made newspaper headlines in Jamaica: only the papers?
    • While it is probably the case that the story was picked up by other forms of news media (it definitely appears on websites, for instance), we have an Associated Press source that specifically states that the story made headline news, so I am following their example here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • So why not just cut it to "made headlines"? The term "headline" is used in the TV news world as well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Raised in a impoverished slum in Montego Bay:
    • shouldn't assume readers know that Montego Bay is in Jamaica.
      • I've added a brief few words to that sentence explaining where the city is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • On that note, outside of the lead it's never mentioned that he was Jamaican—we get "Jones' murder made headline news across Jamaica" in the "Reaction" section, which is the first mention of Jamaica. The lead is supposed to summarize the body (and thus be independent of it), so the fact that he was Jamaican needs to be made explicit in the body.
    • Is it known if he was born in Montego Bay, or only raised there?
      • I am unaware of any information specifying exactly where he was born. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • his effeminate behavior:
    • do we have examples?
      • Unfortunately I don't think so; I would assume that this is a reference to perceived effeminate mannerisms but lack any sources to testify to this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, the wording could be seen as POV—we might want something like "behaviour regarded as effeminate" (or "perceived as effeminate", as you have in the lead).
    • I believe Jamaican English uses Commonwealth orthography (as you do with the dates), so I imagine this should be "behaiour" (ditto "neighbours", etc)
      • Agreed; my original script probably would have had Commonwealth orthography, so an editor more familiar with American spelling presumably made the changes at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Jones was known as "Gully Queen" among friends, and he won a local dancing competition: the wording seems to imply a relation between dance competitions and being called something like "Gully Queen". I have no idea what "gully" means—can we get a gloss?
    • "Gully" refers to life on the impoverished urban streets, and has similar connotations to terms like "gangsta". However I'm not entirely sure how to incorporate this into the article however, as I fear that it might constitute original research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
"Gully Queens" refers to a group of Jamaicans who live in the sewer. Gully is a storm drainage ditch. for information here or here SusunW (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this; I have added the latter source with the additional information to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • who believed Jones to be biologically female: do you know anything good to link to here? Biological sex just links to Sex.
    • Perhaps just a link to female ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think that would be helpful—I was hoping for an in-context article that makes the sex vs gender distinction clear. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • they accosted him: including the girl?
    • Difficult one; the sources do not make it at all clear here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • He was beaten, stabbed, shot and run over by a car.: Holy shit!
  • the Orange Main Road: is that article supposed to be there?
  • "Bc, the boy good! I'm catch me for true": the gloss is about as opaque as the original—can we get a gloss of the gloss?
    • Given that I have offered the best translation as I could, I think it best if this passage is simply removed altogether, unless there is someone who is fluent in Jamaican slang around ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The boy was really talented and truly fooled me would be my take on it. SusunW (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Giving "JFJ", "QCJ", and "HRW" raises the expectation that we'll see these later in the article, but we don't
    • I have removed the abbreviations from the three instances where they are not repeated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "find a common ground undergirded by the principles espoused in our National Anthem, "teach us true respect for all" and National Pledge".": something screwy's going on here
    • I appreciate that it's not the clearest piece of prose that I've ever read, but it is a direct quote and thus think it best if it remains in its current form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, at least one that that needs fixing is the secoond-to-last quotemark—where is the opening quotemark? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Given that BenLinus has also raised exactly the same point, I think it best if I conceded to the two of you and change the prose in this sentence. I have now done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for your comments Curly! If you feel able to give this article your support for FA status then that would be greatly appreciated, but no pressure if you don't feel it worthy at present. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Aa77zz & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Two of us have buffed this article up over time. We feel it looks pretty good and is within striking distance of FA status, so have at it. We'll try and fix stuff double-quick. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Cas, is this a WikiCup entry for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
oops, yes it is (I was still on autopilot expecting a bot to do that) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fregata_distribution.png: possible to provide a more specific citation for this data?
I don't have the book but the distribution map is also available from the publisher's web site and I've added an external link to that. Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Tangata_manu_statuette.jpg needs a US PD tag, and does the current licensing reflect the status of the photo or of the artworks themselves? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:I'm unsure about the license for this photograph. It was published in 1935 in a self-published French book by Stephen-Chauvet. His dates are 1885-1950. The author thanks the British Museum for the photograph and there is a BM logo on the ruler included in the original plate. I've looked in the British Museum database and there is only one possible entry here. Unfortunately the BM doesn't give a photograph to confirm that the object is the same. It doesn't appear to be on display - otherwise I could visit the museum and take my own photograph (I live in London). The BM entry gives the date as: "18thC(late)- 19thC(early)". The object is thus almost certainly very old but who owned the copyright of the photograph - the author of the book or the British Museum? The author died 65 years ago. Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Is he thanking the BM for taking the photo and sending it to him, or allowing him to take a photo himself? The copyright of the photo would belong to the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added the US copyright. We can request an image I see - I wonder if there is still a wikipedian in residence there? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
There is also this alternative photo, though the sourcing seems a bit weird: [3] Or this diagram: [4] FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That first one is from the same book I think, and there are problems. The second one is not as interesting, and not sure it would add much visual value to the article... sigh... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Update - have removed image as discussion at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/British_Museum#Getting_a_photo_of_an_object_in_storage....3F is suggesting still under copyright. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Routledge, 'The Mystery of Easter Island' publ.1920 - Bird-Men
Might be better to use an image of the petroglyphs of birdmen. The artwork is definitely out of copyright even if the photographs might not be, and more importantly whilst some if not most wooden objects are likely to be fake or post contact made for export the petroglyphs are legit. My own photos are in some drawer from the pre digital era, but there are others ϢereSpielChequers 12:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Fake?! yikes what a controversy..that photo is indistinct (sorry). Might have a look for some others then... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Great article from two experienced editors, but of course a few nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • during breeding season—missing "the" or "their"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • ''restrict their breeding habitat respectively to two small islands. —I can't see what "respectively" applies to here
I meant something like "to one small island each" so just changed it to that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • maybe some more links, perhaps squid, tuna, kleptoparasite, jellyfish, plankton
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • the frigatebirds to be less divergent than tropicbirds but more than pelicans related to a core group of gannets, darters and cormorants—I had to read this three times to make sense of it. "Related" is ambiguous here, with two meanings. Unless it's just me, it needs punctuating or rephrasing for clarity.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • in preference over the 1840 description—"preference to"
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition, with their long wings, they would have great difficulty taking off again—not cause and effect as written. Albatrosses have even longer wings and they can take off. Maybe long wings relative to body weight?
tweaked, though to body size not weight Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • the species has fidelity to the site they were born despite their high mobilityThe… they… their
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as parting shot, in the species has fidelity to the site they were born/their site of birth I query whether "born" is appropriate for birds, suggest "hatched" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
changed to "hatching" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

I plan to review this, and will make comments as I work through it. In general, it is very well written. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • "Evolutionary references classify Fregatidae ..." - What does this mean?
It sorta means the papers using cladistics, but it is pretty universal consensus-wise, so rewrote it thus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last sentence of the lead, some of the frigatebird species common names have a definite article and some do not.
I've juggled with the definite articles. Are you happy with my changes? Aa77zz (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the sentence starting "Three species have been described:", it would be nice to know where the Green River Formation and the Wasatch Formation are.
fixed - both western US Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the same sentence, there are two juxtaposed phrases starting with "from" which jar.
these are hard to find substitute words or phrases that aren't ungainly themselves....nothing is coming to mind but it is late and I am tired here... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why you need to include the phrase "from a recovered coracoid and humerus" at all. You didn't state which bits of bird were found in the other fossil species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
ok, removedCas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the same sentence again, there is an implication that Ascension Island and Saint Helena are in the Pacific, which they are not.
specified Atlantic for Ascension and St Helena Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the species table, you give the sizes of some species and not other. I was intrigued by the great frigatebird being F. minor.
The use of minor is certainly confusing. The species was originally considered to be a small pelican. This is explained in the great frigatebird article. Aa77zz (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the great frigatebird section of the table, you need a Fahrenheit equivalent for the water temperature.
Fahrenheit added Aa77zz (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Frigatebirds have markedly pneumatic bones, making them very light and contribute only 5% to total body weight." This sentence needs clarification.
added "(air-filled)" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You have misunderstood. It is the grammar of the sentence I dislike. The subject of the sentence is "frigatebirds" not "bones", and the whole sentence wants rejigging in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
ok, rejigged to align subjects now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In the distribution section, you need some imperial equivalents for the metric distances.

Imperial distances added Aa77zz (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "frigatebirds have found ways to not overheat" - I would have said "not to overheat".
changed - but both versions sound acceptable to me. Aa77zz (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "particularly as they spend days on nests in full sunlight" - you probably mean "particularly as they are exposed to full sunlight when on the nest"
agreed and changed Aa77zz (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "In Nauru, catching frigatebirds was an important tradition. It is still practiced to a lesser degree." These two sentences could be combined. Is "practiced" spelt correctly?
  • "It is not now found on the island, and its incorporation into local ceremonies suggests it only vanished from there sometime in the 19th century up to the 1860s." - This sentence is a bit awkward.
I tried this - I figure I didn't have to clarify "now-vanished" as it has been discussed as widespread elsewhere in the article...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now Supporting this candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. Aa77zz (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Maky[edit]

  • "oldest fossil record"—it's nitpicking, I think "oldest fossils" sounds better. I guess I always read "fossil record" as defined at Fossil.
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For the taxobox image, I suggest including the scientific name in parentheses.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Under etymology, I recommend starting the etymology and then mentioning the other names after. When I read it, I wondered where everything was going. The point is: address the point, then visit your tangents.
paras switched - my only minor quibble is this is now less chronological...but see the idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see it going both ways. But for me, at least, I favor addressing the subject first over chronology. If others disagree, you can switch it back. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You do a good job covering the synonyms in the body, but what about a quick list in the taxobox?
Umm...might be a bit tricky, as the name covers both family and do we do synonyms for both...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Although not the most ideal FA to refer to, Ring-tailed lemur also deals with synonyms for both genus and species. With Ucucha, we used a slightly different approach at Pachylemur... though I'm not sure I like it now. If there are a lot of items in the list, it can be made collapsible. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For note b, can you provide a translation in brackets following the quote?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you briefly describe "totipalmate"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "This was because the genus names..." – The last half of this sentence sounds like it played a role in the decision, rather than just being an outcome. Am I reading it wrong?
It did play a role - had the synonymisation happened after 1961, the family name would have been Tachypetidae. See chapter 8, Article 40 here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want, you can encase the cladogram in {{cladogram}} and use the "caption" parameter... but that's just a suggestion...
I futzed it when I tried rejigging...I give up :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I made the change I suggested. (Don't worry, the syntax messes me up a lot, too. That's why I go back to other articles I've written and use existing work as templates.) Anyway, if you don't like it, please revert. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Caption: "Bones of the left foot of Fregata aquila showing pectinate edge to mid claw, [43] a characteristic of the Suliformes.[44]" Why not cover this in the body and repeat without captions? I don't know... if I were looking for anatomical details, I would look in the appropriate sections, not in image captions.
am in two minds about this - there are lots of minor little bony things and this is just one example, so would not be significant enough to mention in text, but makes a nice caption. My co-nominator added it so will see what he says. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not responsible - the figure was added here. I would be happy to lose the figure as it adds extra complexity that I don't believe is necessary. Aa77zz (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would also be in favor of losing the image. However, if you do remove it, you might move it and the text to the Suliformes article. – Maky « talk » 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
ok, I have moved it to Suliformes - that would be the place where osteology can be discussed sometime...(aaah future chores...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • overlinking "totipalmate" & "gular pouch"
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "regularly travel to Johnston Atoll (873 km (542 mi))..." – can you pull the numbers out of the parentheses by saying "travel x km (x mi) to..."? Also, the rest of that sentence seems a bit run-on.
tweaked and split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the classification "least concern" or "Least Concern"?
capitalised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article looks great. Looking forward to giving my support. – Maky « talk » 05:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Support – The only point left is in regards to the synonyms, and that's not a reason to hold up the nomination. I'm happy to add my support. – Maky « talk » 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Fremantle Prison[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the World Heritage listed former Australian prison – built by convicts, for convicts, between 1851 and 1859, and used as a prison until 1991. The previous FAC (which included an image review from Nikkimaria) was closed as "not enough commentary to come close to consensus to promote, plus it sounds like restructuring may be in order ... and ask that further improvements be made outside the FAC process". Restructuring/improvements during and slightly after that FAC (mostly trimming WP:SUMMARYSTYLE summaries) has seen the article prose size reduced from 64 kB to just under 50k. Whether or how to mention the "Routine", "Diet", and "Punishment" sections in the lead was an issue awaiting consensus from the previous FAC – I have copied the relevant comments below (note that I have copyedited and trimmed the lead since then [5]). As before, I look forward to your comments, and hope to eventually bring the whole set of Fremantle Prison articles to good or featured topic status. - Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wikiprojects notified [6][7][8][9] - Evad37 [talk] 15:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fremantle Prison/archive2:

...and few changes to mark the passing of time. - I don't know what this means (actually I think I'd remove this sentence as obvious and nonspecific to Freo prison really)
Meals were an important part of the day, breaking up the monotony, eaten in the cells, throughout the operational life of the prison. - I think I'd remove this as obvious and nonspecific to Freo prison really
Punishments for misbehaviour at various points in the prison's history included flogging, solitary confinement, a restricted diet of bread and water, time in irons, lengthening of a sentence, and restriction from visitors or entertainment. - again...don't these happen at all prisons? I'd ditch it....
The above three sentences are meant to summarise the "Routine", "Diet", and "Punishment" sections of the articles. They might be obvious and nonspecfic, but I feel something is needed in the lead (and per MOS:INTRO, the relative emphasis of content should be the same in the lead and the body of the article). - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about whether these particular sentences are kept or removed, just that the topics should be mentioned in some form in the lead. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
sigh - yeah I see your point but I don't think it's essential, especially when the article is so big. Happy to leave it and see what the consensus is when more folks comment here. Cas Liber talk · contribs) 03:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - tightened up since last I read it. Comes in at 49nb readable prose size, just under the size we'd really think about splitting it. Anyway, it's comprehensive and I find the prose engaging with no clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I read this since I've actually been there and Fremantle was my favourite bit of WA. Like Cas, I can see much wrong with this and it's not too long. Good work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Jimfbleak... assuming you meant "can't see much wrong", not "can see much wrong" ;) - Evad37 [talk] 11:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
mea culpa ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments Very interesting. A few points. Due to lack of time, I am going to have to do this over the next few days.
  • It may not be obvious to non-Commonwealth people that The Terrace is a street. Could this be gracefully signaled in some way, perhaps by saying its address is The Terrace?
It probably isn't significant enough for the lead, so I've moved it to the infobox, where it is labelled as Street address. I also added the other streets bounding the site to the Layout section, which makes it more obvious that The Terrace is a street. - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • " responsible for the entire convict or prison system, " In Western Australia, or just the Fremantle/Perth area?
Added "in Western Australia" - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "legal place of execution" consider "lawful" for "legal", it may resonate more (the traditional sentence of death sometimes directed that the prisoner be taken to "and thence to a place of lawful execution" I believe. Not sure about Australia.
Done for now. (I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but we'll see if any other reviewers think any differently.) - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Am I correct that the present tense is used for features still extant, and the past for those no longer there?
It is a bit difficult with the tenses, in that the physical buildings still exist, but not their functions – e.g. "there is a hospital" wouldn't actually be correct, as while the building is still extant, it is no longer a hospital. Anyway, I've adjusted the tenses, so hopefully the text conveys it a bit better. - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The last sentence needs sourcing.
Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Got to go, more later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I will be away on holiday from 28 June until 6 July, and may not be able to respond comments until afterwards. - Evad37 [talk] 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment In general, is quite good but could benefit by some judicious pruning to avoid repetitions, the ones I've caught, I've laid out below, plus other comments.
  • "Inside the walls, the parade ground is located east of the gatehouse, in between it and the Main Cell Block[1] at the centre of the site,[2] which contains two chapels" This is getting too complicated
  • The purpose of the tunnels might perhaps be stated on first mention lest we assume The Great Escape.
  • "and later part of the prison administration" This says to me that the building was part of the administration, as though it were an officer. Perhaps it is different in Australian English.
  • It strikes me that the image of the restored gatehouse might be better placed in the gatehouse subsection. It would crowd a bit, but I think you could rearrange the subsections without any real problems. They don't seem to require a particular order.
  • ""separate system", whereby prisoners were completely isolated for the first three months of their sentence. A panopticon" There may be suitable links for this system and so forth which I think originated at Eastern State Penitentiary. (I'm doing this offline)
Linked to separate system - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "and for those condemned to death" Civilian military or both? If just military, then this seems unnecessary though dramatic.
  • "eventually cleared" The "eventually" seems unneeded.
Removed - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "had been refurbished" Isn't "was refurbished" adequate?
Not really, the first part of that sentence is The tunnels were re-opened in mid-2005, (so it would have to be "were" not "was", and then there would be two "were"s in the sentence - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "looked for a site ... site" one or the other should go
  • "The first priority was the construction of accommodation for Henderson and the prison warders to relieve the expense of paying for private lodging.[22]:3 The prison walls were constructed between 1853 and 1855," I would say that the lodgings for Henderson et al. were actually built, lest a contradiction be seen here.
  • "Due to the great expense of sending these convicts back to Britain, the authorities there negotiated with the colonial government to transfer control of the convicts, as well as the prison complex" It is, I think, implied that Britain wanted to relinquish jurisdiction over the convicts, of which there were few remaining, but it might help to state it. Otherwise all this comes a bit out of the blue. See note re overuse of "convict", below.
  • The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of 19th century contains the word "convict" three times, though once as part of a capitalised term. Possibly one of the three could be gotten rid of. The third sentence contains that word twice, and one might be lost.
  • "a Labor government". Possibly pipe to the premier in question, or the article if any about his government.
  • "A hostel providing short-stay accommodation" both sexes? And is this a youth hostel or some other sort of arrangement?
Staff etc.
  • "By the 1940s, the role of superintendent became a position filled through internal promotions" as opposed to?
  • " and their lives were just as regimented as the prisoners.[38]:17–24 In the 1890s warders still had "little more freedom than the prisoners in their charge",[23]:65 " Length might be cut by reducing duplicative prose like this.
  • " The warder's role became clearly defined in 1902, having previously been unwritten and poorly known due to a high turnover rate." I'm sure they had some idea why they were there.
  • "The number of prisoners in 1897 was 379, and Inspector of Prisons James Roe viewed the prison as "inconveniently full"." prison, prison, prison
Possibly the middle recitation of the routine can be placed in a quote box.
  • "1890s food was still very limited in diversity" possibly "variety" for "diversity"?
  • "actually recommended". The word "actually" strikes me as a bit POV.
  • "jetties". A word used twice in this article, with somewhat different meanings.
  • "the rise of trade unions that saw such labour as a threat to the free market," very high minded of them, when what I was thinking they'd object to is that if the government is getting stonemasonry for free, they don't want to hire members of the WA Industrial Brotherhood of Stonecutters (or whatever). This does read a little POV ...
  • "water pump" You indicated earlier that a steam pump was completed in 1896 and relieved the prisoners of this labour.
  • I thought the water pump was something they did whilst not playing draughts?
  • I would mention earlier in this section that the flogging was with the cat o' nine tails to consolidate the matter, and later you need only mention that the cat (and flogging I assume?) was abolished.
  • "and were hanged by falling through the opening trap door" I'm not sure "falling" fits the prose here, as this is being done to them, whereas falling is done by someone, an active noun in a passive phrase. Dropping?
  • Irish Fenian John Boyle O'Reilly in 1869 and six more Fenians in 1876," I would omit "Irish Fenian" and change "more" to "other". I don't think any information is lost. "Irish", at least by ancestry, is implied by his name (so shoot me for stereotyping!) and his allegiance. I'm not sure what the "Irish" was getting at anyway. Didn't Irish and Australians have the same nationality in 1869?
  • It strikes me that these individuals stories of escapees is a place where you might consider shortening. The first one probably can stand more or less as is, but the Fenians story mostly doesn't involve the prison and perhaps you can look to shorten a bit.
  • "29 April 1875 sailed from New Bedford, Massachusetts on a secret rescue mission. Coordinating with local Fenian agents, the escape was arranged for 17 April, when" Ah, they lost 12 days at the International Date Line, then.
  • "an international diplomatic incident," I think "international" is implied.
  • It's a heck of a story. But I recommend a significant cutback. It has its own article.
  • " the prisoners to riot, breaking fittings, injuring three prison officers, three prisoners" They injured themselves? If the prisoners were responsible for the riot, that doesn't make them self-injurious thereby.
  • "without funding from the state government" possibly pipe here to the premier in question or the article on his government if any.
  • Why is the damage from the 1968 riot priced in $ and the 1988 riot in A$? (with link, too, to the OzBuck)
  • I understood there was to be no retribution, yet 33 on trial? Also, "extended sentences" is ambiguous. It could mean lengthened or lengthy.
  • Did the fire hasten the closing? If so, this should be mentioned above in the history.
  • " eleven convict areas to become World Heritage Sites.[66] Five years later, the prison was one of eleven former convict sites" The dual mention of the eleven convict areas/sites can surely be consolidated.
  • "focused historical interpretation and conservation efforts on the prison's convict era, at the expense of its more recent history. These included its use as an internment centre" After some thought and effort, I determined that "these" referred to "recent history", rather than "convict era". Neither is a plural noun, even given the laxities of Commonwealth English in the area. (as an aside, as Western Australia's convict era started relatively late, it might be worth giving a range of dates early on in the article).
  • We're rather clearly getting, since we are told at least three times (counting the lede) that the convict era is prioritised. Could we get an explanation on why this is so for us non-Ozzians? (I have a fair idea but thousands may not). I imagine that were it not for the convicts, WH status would not be in the cards? Say if the identical prison had been built at the identical time in Adelaide ...
  • The description of how World Heritage status seems very repetitive in the convicts being the priority, as well. It seems to me that this can be boiled down quite a ways by mentioning that the convict era was prioritised in A, B, and C, and finally as implemented. Or some such.
Restoration: the left-justified image (if you choose to keep it here) is interfering with the section header right below in my browser. Put a {{clear}} template or similar.
  • "Dennis (NOZ) Nozworthy, who stated that he found art on death row." Since there is no link, the obvious question (was he executed?) somewhat leaves us hanging...
Well done otherwise, looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I'll be working through them over the next couple of days. I've done a couple of the easy fixes as noted above, some of the others I may need to double check what the sources say - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the formation of Liverpool F.C. up until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager. The article is currently a GA and I believe it is close to attaining featured standard. Thanks in advance for your comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments - taking a look now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Despite the scoreline, only 200 spectators attended the match, but as the season went on and as Liverpool continued to win their attendances increased. - I'd remove the "Despite the scoreline," as it doesn't make sense as a contrastive (the attendees wouldn't have known the score beforehand..)
Done NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Approximately 2,000 people watched Liverpool defeat South Shore in their penultimate match at Anfield - huh? Liverpool still play at Anfield now...?
change to penultimate match of the season NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
with a realistic chance of winning their first League championship. - "realistic" is redundant here. With one game to play any chance is a chance....
More success did not follow as Liverpool were unable to repeat the feat; - I'd remove "More success did not follow" - let the facts speak for themselves.
McQueen was initially successful, as Liverpool retained the championship, this owed much to the form of their goalkeeper Elisha Scott, who only conceded 31 goals during the season, a league record at the time - long sentence. I'd split after "championship"
A significant development occurred at Anfield in 1920, as the Kop was redesigned - I'd remove "A significant development occurred at Anfield" and let facts speak for themselves
This paragraph has alot of "spectators" in it, might be good to remove one...
Are there any other key players during this period to mention?
I've tried to include a bit more now NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the extra material was exactly what I was looking for, to give it some atmosphere and help the reader feel it more. Looking more now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Did they play in all-red during this period?
Nope, the all red kits were not introduced until 1965 NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is only 16 kb long in prose size, so any key events with interesting anecdotes could be expanded a little. Otherwise is a little "this happened, then this happened, then this happened etc."
I've had a go at this and added a bit more NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Tom Watson left as manager in 1915 - says on his talk page that he actually died (?) - so he likely got sick there (?)
Yep expanded on this NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Any idea why Ashworth left to manage Oldham?
Yep, added a bit about that now. NapHit (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Overall, fairly engaging. I think I'll need to read it again. I do think this is within striking distance of FA-hood...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber, I appreciate the comments and the kind words. Hopefully, it's not too far off! NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think I tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose, but don't know much about Liverpool so this is sort of pending on other folks' views as well. good luck..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments–I'll gladly read this article. I haven't seen many sport articles on FAC these days.
A comma is needed after "his 56th birthday".
Scott joined Belfast Celtic after 24 years at the Club–I think club shouldn't be capitalized.
Is it grammatically correct to write "in front of 34,140 crowd (or attendance)" instead of " in front of a crowd of 34,140"?
I think you can drop who from Liddell's image without losing the meaning of the decription.
I support the prose, I've rarely seen an article with neat writing as this one. My notes are easily fixable, and I believe this article deserves the FA barnstar.--Retrohead (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words and the support Retrohead, much appreciated. Regarding the attendance comment, I'm not 100% sure about this, so I'll leave it and see if anyone else picks up on it. All your other comments have been addressed, thanks again. NapHit (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Consider it done. I wasn't sure either, and must admit, it sounds like an American English feature.--Retrohead (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments by User:Dweller I'm looking it through and comments will appear here: --14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. I notice the history of the club is broken into three periods. This article covers 67 years. The other two cover 26 and 31 respectively. Does that seem like POV recentism? --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from. The only reason I did it like this was to separate the articles at significant points in the club's history. 59 for the appointment of Shankly and 89 for Hillsborough. I guess they are arbitrary in a sense, could potentially be seen as recentism I suppose. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Lead mentions "club president" Houlding. Unclear which club is intended (presumably Everton) but in any case this position is not mentioned (and therefore not cited) in the body text. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. "moving to Goodison Park from Anfield" - last two words are a redundancy.
  3. "Thus, he founded Liverpool to play there The first match was against Rotherham Town in the Lancashire League." Choppy and missing a full stop
  4. The lead jumps straight from winning promotion to the League to winning the League itself. Did they not need to get promoted? That progress must be worth a mention - it's not like the Lead is excessively long, currently.
  5. "More success followed in the 1920s; ... Despite this success, the Inter-war years were unsuccessful for Liverpool" Hmmm. Repeated language, a rogue capital I and an apparent explicit contradiction in terms. Try deleting "more success followed in the 1920" and changing the rest to "Despite this success, during the inter-war years, the club often finished mid-table" --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  6. "a dispute between Everton and Houlding". Everton are an inanimate organisation. Do you mean the directors?
  7. "Houlding was left with an empty ground" Eh? Surely John Orrell was.
This is a bit confusing. The history pages on the club's official website state Houlding bought the land off Orrell, yet some of my books state he rented. I suppose it would be best to go with the club's version? NapHit (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Fairly sure "rebuked" should be "rebuffed"
  2. "the League refused to admit the club" why? Because of the dispute?
  3. "its first match ... thus they" You need to decide whether Liverpool is a singular noun or plural. Either works for BrEng, but you must be consistent. So "their first match ... thus they" or "its first match ... thus it" and then apply it to the rest of the article
  4. "Incidentally" Yuck. Very colloquial. The sentence works far better without the word anyway.
  5. "the resignation of Accrington Stanley and Bootle" two clubs, so surely "resignations"?
  6. "the city's colour of red" I have no idea what this means
  7. What colour were their original shorts and what did it change to?
  8. I can't believe the forebearance in not pointing out that Newton Heath, who were relegated and then replaced by Liverpool are Manchester United! It's a historically interesting moment.
  9. "regular attendances of 20,000 spectators" That's quite freaky. I presume there's an "approximately" missing.

More later --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at addressing these comments, think I've responded or got most of them. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde talk. Thought I better do a review now that I've nominated an article myself. This one piqued my interest. Probably won't get the review done in one sitting, but here goes:

  • This escalated into a dispute between Houlding and the Everton board over how the club was run -- this is a bit vague, can more detail be included about that this exactly entailed? Did the board decide to relocate the club? How did Houlding end up with Anfield? Had he purchased it, or was the lease in his name?
  • You should check for duplicate wiki-links. There are a couple in there (including Anfield linked twice in the opening paragraph).
  • The League, unimpressed with their hubristic application, refused to admit the club and they were forced to join the Lancashire League. -- "their hubristic" could be interpreted as the League rather than the club, maybe change to "the hubristic application"
  • They had arrived following manager John McKenna's trip to Scotland to recruit players for the club. -- It seems this sentence could be improved (and made a little more precise?). How about "Manager John McKenna had recruited the players while on [or after?] a scouting trip to Scotland."
  • won the Lancashire League on goal average from Blackpool. -- Is it "from Blackpool" or "over Blackpool"?
  • The trophies that Liverpool were awarded were stolen and the club had to pay £130 to replace them. -- Again wonder if the prose could be tighter, how about "However Liverpool had to pay £130 to replace the trophies after they were stolen."
  • You mention the fact the club won more and more matches and their attendance increased, but how many Lancashire League games did they actually play?
  • You've linked both Football League Second Division and Football League Second Division on their second mention rather than first.
    • See the lead. -- Shudde talk 05:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The club's first match in the Football League -- it would be really good to specify the date here (considering how historic it is).
  • Should it read "which they won 2–0, with Malcolm McVean scoring Liverpool's first goal in league football" ?
  • There is a redirect to Playoffs#Association football that may as well be corrected.
  • who would later be known as Manchester United -- "who were later renamed Manchester United" ?
  • You've used "Test Match" and then later "test match" -- which one is it?

I'm done for now. I'll come and finish this off later. -- Shudde talk 05:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) More:

  • 12 wins in their final 14 matches resulted in a first place finish. -- this is a violation of MOS:NUMERAL and should be reworded.
  • You've linked to the article 1896–97 in English football (which I think is a good idea), but when discussing earlier seasons not linked to the relevant article. Maybe correct this.
  • Maybe link to Merseyside in it's first mention.
  • Some editors really don't like the construction "would continue" in cases such as league championship would continue as Villa. Maybe just replace with "continued" ?
  • Maybe replace The club also reached the semi-finals of the FA Cup during the season, where they faced Sheffield United. with "The club again reached the FA semi-finals, where they faced Sheffield United."
  • The tie resulted in four matches being played before either side won. -- I know what you're trying to say here, but I think this should be clarified because not all readers are going to be familiar enough with the FA Cup and British English to make sense of this.
    • I still think this may be confusing to some readers, but I have to think about how best to word this. -- Shudde talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Liverpool's wait for their first championship is this their first championship, or do the lower league titles not count?
    • This is how winning the top division is referred to in the UK, simply as winning the championship. So I can understand the confusion, I can try and re word it so its clearer?
      • Yes I think it's worth rewording to avoid any possible ambiguity. -- Shudde talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe appropriate links to Association football positions where necessary
  • like the previous relegation it was only for one season as they won the Division the following season. -- maybe try rewording this, the close-repetition of "season" is a little jarring.
  • The following season four Liverpool players were implicated in the 1915 British football betting scandal. They were found guilty of conspiring with Manchester United players to fix a United win in a league match between the teams and were banned for life. -- I wonder if more could be said on this. Is it as big a deal as it sounds?
    • I wouldn't say it is that a big a deal, but I've added an anecdote and the names of the players. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It's definitely worth saying why the players' ban was rescinded. It's also worth noting if their were any long-term repercussions because of this? Was this kind of thing common at the time? -- Shudde talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Done for now. More to come. -- Shudde talk 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have fixed most of these now. Thanks for your time and comments Shudde, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments:

  • He would lose his life -- again maybe just "He lost his life ..."
    • He lost his life on 6 May 1895 -- this is clearly an error. -- Shudde talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Should this not read "Such was Watson's popularity amongst his playing staff [that] Raisbeck, Ned Doig" ?
  • fourth place the following season, before the club regained the League Championship in the 1921–22 season. Liverpool were favourites to win the league towards the end of the season -- it's the close repetition of season here that is a little off putting. Could it be reworded?
  • However, a 4–1 victory over West Bromwich Albion was enough to secure Liverpool's third League Championship. -- Because of the previous sentence it may be worth stating when in the season this match was played (was it the last game?)
  • I've noticed that sometimes you write "League Championship" and at other "league championship". On top of this when you write "championship" by itself sometimes. Should the first letter not just be capitalised in all cases?
  • You probably don't need to link Second World War
  • , as the club's form declined this seems redundant and can probably be cut
  • Despite the increase in, Liverpool could not repeat their earlier success. -- this makes little sense
    • Despite the increase in spectators, Liverpool could not repeat their earlier success -- (Italics are mine). It makes more sense now, however I'm not sure what an increase in attendance is expected to do to help a team's form. This implies that their form should improve with more spectators, and I don't quite get that. -- Shudde talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • McQueen was unable to replicate his early success at the club and he retired in 1928 after his leg was amputated following a road accident, while he had been on a scouting assignment. -- not sure about the grammar here, it reads a bit funny
  • McQueen was replaced as manager by George Patterson. -- Can more be said on why he was selected for the job?
  • The Second World War brought about the loss of seven seasons to competitive league football in England. -- Again I'm not sure this makes sense. How about "League football in England was suspended for seven seasons due to the Second World War."
  • The first game played at Anfield after the war was against Middlesbrough -- Again it might be worth mentioning the date of the match here -- considering football was suspended for so long and all.
  • Their form declined towards the end of the season as they progressed further in the FA Cup, by the time they faced Everton in the semi-finals, they were out of contention and eventually finished 8th. -- This could do with a reword. It could be read to imply they finished 8th in the FA Cup even though I know that's not what you mean.
    • This is better but still a bit odd. Their League form declined, but they kept advancing in the FA Cup? -- Shudde talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

*There are still duplicate links. There is tool to help with dup links (User:Ucucha/duplinks) that I recommend. Comments on the lead:

  • through their first period of success -- maybe say when this was (I just read the article and I'm not 100% sure)
  • You mention that Houlding owned Anfield in the lead but not in the main text. I'd add it in the main text, it'll help address a comment I had above
  • I think the lead could do with a bit of an expansion. Mainly about the period 1914-1945. At the moment there is only two very short sentences on this period.

I am not really qualified to probe too much into whether this article meets the comprehensiveness criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. But there are a few things that I think could be expanded upon.

  • Obviously some football was suspended due to the World Wars. Was this all football? What did this mean for the finances of the club? What happened to the professional players? The coaches? the staff? They all had to make a living right?
  • On top of that, did any of the players or former players fight in either war? Were any killed?
  • It seems to me that managers were appointed for quite a long time. In fact many seem to have resigned for one reason or another (rather than being fired). I think more could be said on some of them considering how long they were in the role.
  • On that point, did the nature of their role change at all over those 67 years?
  • Very little is ever mentioned about the financial state of the team. Can anything be added on this?

Okay I think I'm done now. I may need to check some of the references and images, but as far as prose goes, I don't have anything more to say. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 00:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Shudde, I've had a go at most of these now and they should be fixed. I'm going to the Netherlands for 5 days tomorrow, so I won't be able to do anything in that time. I've left the expansion you've suggested for the moment as I will look into that once I return. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have struck the comments that have been addressed. A few still need work, and I have added further comments where I think it's helpful. It's no rush, but do ping me if you address them further or have any questions. -- Shudde talk 06:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Eta Carinae[edit]

Nominator(s): Lithopsian & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the biggest baddest star (system) within 10,000 light-years. It's had input from astronomer Mike Peel who got some other professional astronomers to look at it as well, and Hamiltonstone to see it from a layperson's point of view to make it as accessible as possible. We reckon we're pretty close to FA status and promise to fix stuff as quickly as possible. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Belated query, Cas, but is this a WikiCup entry for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
oops, yes it is (I was still on autopilot expecting a bot to do that) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Studying the reference information, I find these issues, that should be easy to fix: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Reference Wilson, Ralph Elmer (1953). "General catalogue of stellar radial velocities". has a stray "0" - is that a month or something?
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference "The periodicity of the η Carinae events†‡§¶" has a set of foot notes that should not really be in the title "†‡§¶"
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference Will Gater; Anton Vamplew; Jacqueline Mitton. The practical astronomer has no date or publisher
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • reference " 陳久金 (2005). 中國星座神 (in Chinese). 台灣書房出版有限公司." could do with some translation of author and title into English.
Added translations of the author, title, and publisher to both Chinese references. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Reference " Mehner, A.; Ishibashi, K.; Whitelock, P.; Nagayama, T.; Feast, M.; Van Wyk, F.; De Wit, W.-J. (2014). "VizieR Online Data Catalog: Near-infrared photometry of {eta} Carinae" says its from "2014A&A...564A..14M" but this is obviously an abbreviation for another publication [10] which says doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201322729 title="Near-infrared evidence for a sudden temperature increase in Eta Carinae" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is correct. Despite the different titles, one is the online catalogue for the other. Apparently at least some VizieR catalogs come with their own bibcodes. I could just use the journal paper for both, but that is just hiding the relevant facts behind another layer. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The White, S. M.; Duncan, R. A.; Chapman, J. M.; Koribalski, B. (2005). "The Radio Cycle of Eta Carinae" reference is missing some info, like the name of the series, publisher, or conference name, and page number looks inconsistent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Smith, Nathan (2006). "The Structure of the Homunculus ..." reference has a mangled title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we got this (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The "2" should be subscript, the Eta should be η, Feii looks like it should be "Fe II" but perhaps the II needs to be in small caps. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Aah got this now. They don't look like small caps on bibcode page so left them normal size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • D. John Hillier; K. Davidson; K. Ishibashi; T. Gull (June 2001). "On the Nature of the Central Source in η Carinae". has an abbreviated journal title ApJ - what is that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
tweaked by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • reference Ian Ridpath. Astronomy has no year of publication or publisher. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
done by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The see also section should not be needed in a FA. The terms should be linked from somewhere in the article if they are relevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
removed by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If there is no where to link them from, then the article is missing something that should be said, eg Bipolar outflow
    • List of largest stars could be linked from "largest known stars"
done by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
done by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • List of most massive stars could be linked from "extremely massive luminous star" or "most massive"
    • Eta Carinids should rate a mention in the article in the missing section about things named after the star
added by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Great Eruption should be a redirect to this, and bolded in the text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The article says " to magnitude 4.6 as of 2012", but can we get an update for 2015? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably not. The secular rate of increase is less than 0.1 magnitudes per decade, with more rapid changes of at least that scale superimposed on the trend. The apparent magnitude just doesn't get officially reported very often, and only a statistically analysed number consistent with previous data could really be used in Wikipedia. The brightness actually took a bit of a blip up in mid-2014 during the periastron passage, but then dropped back. The online monitoring web page could perhaps be used to support a more recent magnitude claim. Click through on the green chart to see individual V observations up to Aug 30th 2014, clearly showing the blip up. AAVSO estimates suggest the brightness very quickly dropped back to 4.5 or 4.6 and has stayed there. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead sentence could already include an exciting fact about the star, that it once was the second brightest star. (not sure about this) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I rejigged like this to list its prodigious luminosity and the brightness in the 1840s in the first few sentences Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
fixed by Lithopsian Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • reference "The Tycho-2 catalogue of the 2.5 million brightest stars" has a CS1 maint: display-authors
Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • reference "Evolution and fate of very massive stars" has a CS1 maint: display-authors
Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • reference "VizieR Online Data Catalog: General Catalogue of Variable Stars (Samus+ 2007-2013)" has CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (these three errors put the article into hidden maintenance categories)
Interestingly, the author list in the reference itself has "et al." for the 3rd author. I'm not sure how to go about changing this here, since I'm not seeing a clear way of discovering who the other authors are. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I checked the lua module for this, and there is no easy work around as I thought there might be. If more authors can be found then diusplay-authors=2 could be used to make et al appear. But it always complains if you input that text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've done a somewhat clunky workaround, but it seems to now be displaying correctly with no CS1 error, even if the wikitext is a little messy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I like your work around! It works fine, and won't even mess up metadata. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Does the sentence on Eta Carinids belong under Visibility? Some may think these meteors come from the star. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point; it doesn't really seem to fit there. However, I loath to have a one-sentence level 2 section about meteor showers, since nothing else really fits with it. I see you wanted the "see also" section removed, but I think it may be the ideal choice in this situation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added some clarifying text; does this work better? StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That text works for me. If there was a section on the location in the sky, that would be the logical place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The light curve generator cuts off the date, and I haven't found a way to fix it. The current image is up to date bar a few weeks. I'll update the captions to reflect the correct dates. Lithopsian (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, I just tried to create an image without the truncated X-axis, but it appears to be a bug in the software itself, which cuts off the last date. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In that case we may have to download the image, expand the canvas and edit in the missing numbers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Both light curve images updated to fix x-axis formatting problems. Lithopsian (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's a possible updated historical light curve. It goes back to the earliest observations, and I changed the aspect ratio so the interesting bits aren't completely lost. Is it better than what we have now? Lithopsian (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It is slightly better when zoomed, but as a thumbnail it won't add much understanding. I am happy with the images in the article now. They do lead to another question about the intensive observations that are happening now. Are these keen amateurs? Is this worth a a mention in the article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. 99% of observations of bright variable stars are made by amateurs. I don't know quite what we do with that factoid though, if anything. Lithopsian (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments: it's a very nice article on well-studied object. However, there are a few areas that I think are in need of refinement:
  • I have concerns with the use of astronomical notation without explanation, which may make parts of the article inaccessible to lay readers.
    • In the 'Visual spectrum', several instances of ion notation occur without explanation.
Note added with explanation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I moved the note up to the first use of the notation. Praemonitus (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In the Ultraviolet section, the ionization notation changes to Fe+.
I've linked a couple of terms, although it may not be obvious that they are to explain the notation rather than being specific to the chemical element or the actual ion. The differing notation is used when referring to an actual ion rather than the originator of a spectral line. Both are correct and could possibly be used in either case, but this seems to be how the pros use them. Lithopsian (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Lyα (Lyman alpha), M (solar mass), 4" (arc seconds), 10,000 AU, and L (solar luminosity) are used without explanation.
All done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I only see about half of them have been addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I guess how I replied could be considered ambiguous; I only meant the last bullet point was addressed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The Homunculus Nebula is mentioned before it is explained, and is not linked at its first occurrence.
Linked. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
this is hard, I tried defining it at first mention, like this but tricky when discussed in detail not at first mention... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 'core hydrogen burning', 'bolometric luminosity', 'hydrogen shell burning', 'nitrogen sequence', and 'core collapse supernovae' are unlinked
linked bolometric to wikt definition as succinct and figured a repeat link to luminosity too wordy. bolometer not helpful either. hydrogen core and hydrogen shell burning tricky - just trying to figure best target. others linked both linked by Lithopsian now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Eta Carinae is the brightest IR source outside the solar system': anywhere? Or in terms of apparent brightness?
Seems to have been reworded by someone else. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I've removed that sentence completely. It is now discussed, and worded, better elsewhere. Lithopsian (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 'temperature of a 60 R hydrostatic "core"': what does this mean? It is unclear from the context.
I've heavily rewritten the Temperature section to try and clarify (or confuse!) the issue of the temperature of the primary star. I've added a little explanation of what a hydrostatic core might be. Lithopsian (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "complete loss of the Earth's ozone layer is a plausible consequence of a nearby supernova": does 'nearby' mean a distance closer or further than Eta Car?
Alot closer - it talks about "50 light-years" for much of the paper and so appears to use this to define "nearby". I've rejigged this a little having just now read both papers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Samus, N. N.; Durlevich, O. V. et al. (2009)": the two other instances of 'et al' have much longer author lists.
Problem is, in this case, the source itself doesn't give any more authors, but rather lists the rest after Durlevich as "et al". StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Praemonitus (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am going through this word by word in alphabetical order, and I have fixed many minor issues. But I have found these that I would like ideas on:

  • Inconsistent use of m⊙ versus m☉ — they look the same but are not, what is correct? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Most are formatted by a solar mass tag, so we're stuck with that. The two different ones are within journal titles, which tend to be ascii-fied. I've changed those two to match the Wikipedia template formatting. Lithopsian (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Use of "color" however the rest of the article looks like British English, should we change this to colour? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
yes, I pondered Color–color diagram but found it written as "Colour–colour diagram" also, so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Consistency is good. Since it is largely British spelling now, should we add a British Spelling tag to try and keep it consistent in the future? Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I added this to editnotice.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • imposter and impostor both appear for the same kind of thing. We should use only one spelling, but what? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Several refs use impostor, the article is supernova impostor, and I tend to feel impostor is more correct. Several sources state that both are correct but impostor is more common. I have a feeling that at some point my spellchecker baulked at impostor and I have been adding imposter, but I've now changed all instances to impostor. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
neither is wrong - impostor apparently slightly more correct. They are all that now'll do.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Use of ≈, would this be better to replace with "about"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I reworded it prosier Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Page numbering shortcuts, should we allow it - eg "927-32". I prefer "927-932". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I always abbreviate to two digits, but some other editors don't. I did think there was an MOS discussion on it but haven't seen it for ages and maybe am imagining it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strange initial abbreviations of J.-M. and J.-C. Perhaps this is a French style as the publishers also use this "-". But should we use it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've always seen hyphenated names (often chinese names as well as french) done this way so does not strike me as odd at all, sorry Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Three uses of "our" for our galaxy, and "our own Sun". Should this just be "the Milky Way" and "the Sun"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
see, I like "our" here but nobody else seems to :(....I think it makes the prose more engaging personally Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
All done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of the images could stand to be larger - particularly those with annotations or text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've made some of the images a little larger; I don't want to make them too much larger, as making the text not appears squished is important, since many screens (including my own) are only 13 inches. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:IMGSIZE, if you use the 'upright' option rather than a fixed size, the images should scale based on your user settings. Praemonitus (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a play with upright. I just read WP:PIC and understand how it works now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • 1. RE: "Eta Carinae is too far south to be part of the mansion-based traditional Chinese astronomy, but it was mapped when ...". Do you not think the word "it" may be redundant?
Okay, I agree with you and would remove the second "it", however most reviewers much prefer the second "it" to remain (I've had sentences like these tweaked many times at FAC!). It is a style thing... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 2. RE: "Observations at the Cape of Good Hope indicated it peaked in brightness, surpassing Canopus, over March 11 to 14 1843 before beginning to fade, then brightening to between the brightness of Alpha Centauri and Canopus between March 24 and 28 before fading once again". Should "brightening" be "brightened"?
Yes - good catch, and tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 3. RE: "The peaks in 1827, 1838, and 1843". Is the second comma needed??
This is the Serial comma issue. I generally didn't use them, but they are very useful if you have to slot a reference for something in a list. Many people here use them. Again a style thing.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Also known as the Oxford comma. I know some people don't like them, but they are occasionally important for clarity, so I use them except in the very rare cases where they would be confusing. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with Lithopsian here; I usually prefer the comma since leaving it out can sometimes cause ambiguity. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 4. RE: "The size of Eta Carinae A is not even well defined". I can't see why you've used the word "even".
We don't know how big either star is because of the dust and gas in the way, but we do know Eta Carinae B is likely to be a star with a clear-cut surface (like most stars), however Eta Carinae A seems to be disrupted and chaotic, so that it may not even have a clear-cut surface, which is unusual..does that make sense? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I went to change this as it seemed like a bit of a weasel word, but it does appear to be there for a reason. The opening paragraph of the section says that the size isn't well known. Then, the second paragraph says that, in addition, the size of the primary isn't even well-defined. The word "even" could come out but I think the prose would lose some meaning. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 5. RE: "In some scenarios, the secondary can accrue significant mass, accelerating its evolution, and in turn being stripped by the now compact Wolf–Rayet primary". The grammar here is puzzling.
Yes - well-spotted, tweaked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments from Singora Singora (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I SUPPORT this article. To be frank, it strikes me as excellent. However:

1. On a random check, refs 35, 43, 48, 50, 54, 65, 73, 87, 114 and 115 point to a Harvard University website. Do you think these links should be archived? It's very easy to archive links, btw. If you're not sure how to do this, please let me know.
thanks for the support, those links aren't via a url parameter but from the bibcode parameter. Not sure how to do it with that. The harvard website is a pretty massive one with fulltexts of a huge number of astronomy papers - I can't imagine it going down or moving... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, bibcodes are like PMID or DOI numbers and they are handled by the cite template. At the moment they happen to point to and the template creates the full URL automatically. Bibcodes will probably stay there for the conceivable future, but if they ever moved then the template would create a url to the new location. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This website is the Astrophysics Data System: it's the main repository of astronomy papers, and it's been running since 1992 so it (hopefully) shouldn't need archiving any time soon! If it does, there are mirrors (e.g., that the template call can be updated to point to. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Fascinating article, which I'm happy to support. One comment: In 1827 Burchell specifically noted its unusual brightness at 1st magnitude. Surely the first sentence of a new section should mention its subject? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

duly tweaked - thx for supporting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed 3 CS1 errors and added some alt= text for most images. Can someone please check my alt text? Otherwise the rest of the article is ready to go so I will add support. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

thx for supporting and tweaking (alt texts look ok) - much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy is a subseries within the Final Fantasy franchise, primarily produced and published by Square Enix. It features games from multiple genres developed by different teams within the company and set in multiple separate settings, but they are all tied together by the use of a single mythos. This makes the series something of an oddity for both Square Enix and video game series in general. Aside from that, there are very few commonalities, so gameplay images would be redundant. All the references have been archived to the best of my ability. The article was made a GA in May 2014. It has undergone a peer review, and undergone copyediting based on both suggestions from that review and my own judgement concerning the article. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


Comments by SnowFire[edit]

Nice work as usual, ProtoDrake.

Year of inception 2006

I see you started a Wikiproject talk section on this topic, but I'm not sure if this makes sense to be in the infobox, or is correctly named if so. Isn't this really "year of announcement?" For all we know it was conceived in 1998 as a twinkle in Nomura's eye. And since when does this even matter that much? Do we care what year exactly Richard Garriot started thinking about ideas that would become the Ultima series?

Of the six announced titles in the series, XV is the only one yet to be released.

Seems kind of a backward phrasing. "As of 2015, five titles have been released in the series, and a 6th title, Final Fantasy XV, is in production" perhaps?

The settings, continuities and plots of the games are unrelated to each other

Nitpicking: I'd think that FF13 / FF13-2 / FF13-3 would be somewhat related to each other? For all that talking about "continuity" is a bit of a mess with FF13-2's time travel nonsense and how it totally ignores the Pulse plotline of FF13.

Nomura stated that he wanted something that the majority of people would note and appreciate

...the source says the reverse, though. ("people all around the world won’t be able to understand") Typo?

it was decided to build upon the idea of multiple games connected by a single theme... Whereas the common link in the Compilation was VII, the team chose to focus on "the tale of new crystals", with the themes and mythos connecting the games rather than an overarching narrative.

Not sure if this is one of those "lost in translation" things or the creators are just flakes, but... wat. What does "focusing" on the title even mean here? New Crystals might be mythos to a degree, but it sure isn't a theme. Was the source material this incoherent and we're just reflecting that?

Nomura created a real-world setting in XV, referring far less to the mythos' terminology

"real-world setting" could use some clarification or rewording - checking the FF15 article, I get the impression that this means "modern, contemporary technology" in the setting, but Lucis & Tenebrae sure don't sound like real world countries, nor do countries in the real world have a giant crystal and near-death experiences don't grant magical powers.

In a 2007 interview, Hashimoto compared the planning of the Fabula Nova Crystallis series to film franchises such as Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.[75]

Good for him. I would describe my own work as a cross between "Citizen Kane" and "Vertigo" myself, with a touch of "Blade Runner." Do we seriously want to let the producers do the comparisons for us? This seems like the kind of comment that's only appropriate from a neutral third party reviewer. I mean, it's one thing to say "we were inspired by series X" but this is just bragging about how epic this is gonna be.

The title change also resulted in the "XIII" numeral being dropped from the series title due to lack of continued relevance.

Not sure if "relevance" is the right word here. "lack of accuracy" perhaps?

all three XIII games would receive digital-only PC ports.[5]

Is "digital-only" even needed? Nobody except Blizzard sells hard-copies these days in the PC market. Everything is on Steam / / Origin / GOG / etc. I guess it's a harmless extra 2 words, but just seems it might imply something unusual when it isn't anymore.

As early as 2007, Square Enix considered re-branding Versus XIII as the next numbered entry

Mega-nitpick: "a numbered entry in the main series" perhaps? "Next" is weird since FF14 would be the next entry.

was eventually announced for a western released as a high-definition port to the same platforms as XV with the idea of boosting console sales prior to the latter's release.

I see this is in the source, so I guess it's fine. But, there wouldn't happen to be a source pointing out that this is crazypants megalomania talk? If not, oh well. (In the uncitable opinion of this Wikipedia editor, good luck with that, Tabata, if you think a PSP port is going to sell PS4s, but I suppose I'm not a source. I guess the article does say later that Type-0 HD sold poorly, which might suffice.).

For these games, Japanese developer tri-Ace was brought in to help with the games' design and graphics.

Is it worth pointing out that tri-Ace went bust afterward somewhere?

Lightning Returns had lower first-week sales than its predecessors, but still topped the sales charts in Japan, selling over 277,000 units in its first week and over 404,000 copies by the end of 2013.

I was under the impression that Lightning Returns had hugely disappointing sales compared to its budget and the expectations set for it, with Square going on a mea culpa tour after both FFX HD & Bravley Default outsold LR. (Which also led to tri-Ace disbanding.) Is that correct? There some way to say "LR sold well compared to most games, but failed to meet the high expectations for a big budget, highly-promoted game?" SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@SnowFire:, I've addressed most to all of the issues you raised (Particular thing I feel I want to mentioned: the Hashimoto quote about the series' planning was about how several titles were planned in advance around a large overall concept, which has been better defined). Just one thing I want to mention: a; nothing was ever said about what caused tri-Ace to fall on hard times, or about anything concerning SEQX "going on a mea culpa tour" about them. Besides This is a general series article, after all, so verifiable fine detail belongs on an individual subject's article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the changes looked good to me in your edit, thanks.
Yeah, I do agree it's difficult to balance just how specific to get. Anyway, it's already linked in the article as a source ("FFXIII beginnings"), but explicitly talks about Bravely Default outselling FF13LR and how Kitase was asking for input on what worked in LR, what didn't, etc. You already mention the "much ado about nothing" quote on FNC from it, but the sales issue seems relevant too. This might be the article misleading me, but I got the impression that it wasn't just Parrish (the author) ragging on FNC, but also Kitase? Not sure. (If Kitase agreed, it would make it something of a "mea culpa..." usual disclaimer that we shouldn't take 1 article's claims as gospel, of course.) Another source on LR's sales compared to other FF games is at . Not 100% sure this is the best source, but has Matsuda's comments to a Japanese newspaper. It seems Matsuda doesn't refer to LR directly, but merely vaguely talks about neglecting their core audience with it merely implied that it was LR (/Hitman Absolution?) being referred to. To be clear I don't want to make the article a hit piece on LR or anything, just as it happens we do have sources on how FNC/LR underperformed a bit compared to expectations, so if there's going to be a sales section, it seems reasonable to mention it, even briefly.
If there aren't any sources tying tri-Ace's sale to FNC, then that's fine of course. Merely something I wondered about, I'll assume you know more about the topic.
Support. (Although I'd still like some more details/explanation on LR's sales per above, ideally.) SnowFire (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support - Once again, it's amazing how much detail you are able to find on these video game topics, over 150 references from reliable sources, and very nicely structured. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments by PresN
  • The sentence in the lead starting "A subseries stemming" is pretty long and rambling- try splitting it in two.
  • "their respective teams used ideas and concepts from development to create additional games" - "concepts from development" seems to be missing "their" or something
  • "Those released in Japan and the west have generally received a positive reception and high sales" - given that none of the games have been released not in Japan or the west, I think this sentence isn't saying what you want it to. Only the games released in NA have high reception? They all do? The sentence also implies that the three XIII games aren't included in that first "positive reception" statement, but they too were released in Japan/the west.
  • "as a PlayStation 3 exclusive on December 17, 2009, while it was released" - while implies a contemporaneous relationship, but in this case the second half of this statement happened 3 months later.
  • "It was released as a digital download" - ambiguous: is "it" FF13? or FF13International?
  • "was released worldwide across March 2015" - across? Just "in" would work better
  • "features a real-time action RPG" - features, or "is a"? Either way, you use "feature" twice within a few words of each other
  • "mini-games and other similar features" - the other features aren't "similar" to what you've listed, so maybe "traditional features" would work better
  • The thought strikes me that, since all these games have their own articles, maybe you could drop the exact dates? Just have, say, the month/year that the games were released in each region? It may reduce some of the listy-ness of the Games section; the tons of dates makes it feel a little overwhelming. Same goes for the Related Media section.
  • "magazine titled Final Fantasy XIII Reminiscence: tracer of memories, was released" - no comma
  • "All the stories were later released online" -ambiguous; just the 3-part novella? Or all the stories mentioned in this whole paragraph?
  • "It became publication in the November 2011"
  • You mention the Type-0 l'Cie being branded, but not that XIII l'Cie get a brand as well?
  • "as Latin was no longer a widely spoken language and had gained a sense of mystery because of this." - bit odd to end the sentence with the prepositional phrase; maybe "and had therefore gained a sense of mystery."?
  • Stopping there for now; will get to the second half of the article soon. --PresN 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wondering where to go after the completion of Final Fantasy XII, it was decided" - who was wondering? also, cut out the passive "it was decided" - Square Enix/whoever "decided".
  • "Whereas the common link in the Compilation was VII, the team chose to use "the tale of new crystals", with the mythos connecting the games rather than an overarching narrative" - what team, and you dropped an implied "the new series" from the sentence that the team chose to use "the tale" for.
  • "Another key idea behind the mythos was to ease the production of future Final Fantasy games by providing an established mythos" - double mythos
  • It took Nojima a year to write the mythos; do you know when that year was? 2003? Even if you don't, might be useful back at the start of "Creation" to mention that "while Final Fantasy X-2 and the original Kingdom Hearts were being completed" is 2002/03 or so, so we have an explicit frame of reference for what time period we're talking about.
  • Oh, I see, you say the mythos finished up by the start of 04 in the next section. Yeah, try to mention that a bit earlier so readers aren't wondering for a couple paragraphs.
  • "The original titles were XIII and Versus XIII" - jarred me a bit; maybe "The original titles in the series were XIII and Versus XIII
  • "with Agito XIII being a mobile phone title" - "being" is such a milquetoast, awkward verb construction, and you use it twice in this sentence. Just say "with Agito XIII described as a mobile phone title"
  • "with each supporting and future game being a "facet" of XIII" - totally misread this when I first hit it, as I thought "each" referred back to XIII/Versus, so the "and" threw me. Maybe "with future games each being a "facet" of XIII"
  • "as it "would have been an issue."" - period outside the quote, as it's not a full sentence being quoted
  • "there was speculation that the subseries would end with Lightning Returns" - as in, the XIII subseries? If so, "room for further titles beyond the XIII universe" doesn't make sense, since they would need to be in the XIII universe to be in that subseries.
  • "into multiple games "probably worked out just as well."[80]" - period outside the quote
  • "The layout of the mythos and its terms received mixed reactions" - layout is an odd word choice, though I can't think offhand what would be better
  • "are handled in much more interesting ways."[129]" - period outside quote
  • "Other aspects that came in for criticism, such as uneven aspects" - the sentence never makes it to a verb- drop the "that"
  • "Parish felt that the initial backlash" - remind readers who he is, it's been 4 paragraphs since you last mentioned that reviewer
  • "Type-0 sold 472,253 units" - this is the only sales number in this section to get this level of arbitrary precision; cut to "over 472,000 units" or something.
  • " its debut week, selling 93,000, though" - 93,000 copies/units
  • You say Type-0 HD ultimately did poorly, then the next sentence say it sold over a million units worldwide- did you mean that it did poorly in Japan?
That's all! I may swing back and give you a source review later, if you don't get one from someone else- right now the idea of parsing through 180 references fills me with dread. --PresN 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@PresN: Done everything there. Thanks hugely. If there's anything else, let me know. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Support - made a further minor tweak, but I'm fine with the article prose now. Good job on getting to all those so quickly; good luck with the rest of the nomination! --PresN 20:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • A single image is used, which is a fair use image with a proper template. It has no problems, though some could argue it is slightly too large. It is on the verge, but I don't think it's a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Source Review: Passed.

Ref formatting
  • It looks like your not supplying publishers, even for magazine-based websites, unless the source itself is a magazine issue. If this is not true, then you need to add publishers to the magazine-based website sources, like Famitsu online and Edge online.
  • Ref 6 - title has a lowercase And, should be italicized as CVG is a magazine.
  • Ref 19,30,37,56,65,68,75,179,180- (in Japanese)
  • Ref 35 not archived, and if DualShockers is reliable (which it appears to be), please consider getting it flagged as such at WP:VG/RS
I don't believe it's reliable. WP:VG/RS#GameRanx_and_DualShockers – czar 16:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Czar:, I've addressed your concern, and (I think) I've removed DualShockers from the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
✓ looks good – czar 17:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 53- Studio Bentstuff edited/created the book, but Square Enix published it
  • Ref 55- no need to list "Edge Staff" as the authors, since that's assumed
  • Ref 58 also needs a publisher, and the formatting is different than ref 53
  • Ref 61- allcaps, link publisher, format isbn the same as the other books
  • Ref 66- it's USGamer, like EuroGamer, no .com
  • Ref 67- is PSPHyper an RS? Never heard of it (though I don't have a PSP)
  • Ref 71- wired in italics
  • Ref 72- similar issues to refs 53,58
  • Ref 73- issue? issn? publisher?
  • Ref 84- no staff, no italics
  • Ref 100- no .com
  • Ref 130- this is from Dengeki, not ASCII, yeah?
  • Ref 167- caps, source (Geimin)
  • Ref 170- ALLCAPS
    • Publisher thing was a deliberate design choice as I have not had problems with that in previous FA reviews, and all other issues I think addressed. And as for Ref 73, I can't find any other details about that issue and there's not much said about the magazine from the research I've done, which is why I included the link to the translation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Forthcoming. --PresN 16:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Checked 12 different sources throughout the article (all usages of each); all came back clean. --PresN 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Maky[edit]

I'm actually playing FFXIII for the first time in my non-existent spare time, so what the heck...

  • " a series of games developed and published by Square Enix. Fabula Nova Crystallis is a series of games..." – A bit redundant
  • "The mythos can be freely interpreted by the teams developing the games." – I didn't catch the meaning and/or significance upon my initial read. It's later explained in the body, but in the lead, it needs a bit more for clarification.
  • 2nd paragraph in lead, "conceived" used as the verb in two consecutive sentences ... just sounds redundant
  • "It is set for a western release in April 2015..." – Any update on this?
  • "XIII was worked on by team members who had also worked on..." – Maybe change one "worked on" to "developed"?
  • "Type-0 HD‍ '​s development was handled by Japanese studio HexaDrive." – This feels like it was just slopped onto the end of the paragraph. Why not work it into the second sentence?

Everything else looks good to me. Just fix the readability issues, and you'll have my support. – Maky « talk » 06:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I attended to everything. Thanks for the comments. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
All the changes looked good except for the one about the western release in 2015. Without changing sources, you changed the tense to say that it was released. Do you have a source that confirms the release? – Maky « talk » 00:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Whoops! I just rechecked the source given, and it says a July release. So sorry. I can't think what I was thinking when I put that in. This is the source in question if you wish to clarify. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Support – Good thing we caught that. As long as all other points made by other reviewers are covered and it has passed its source and image review, it looks good to me. – Maky « talk » 18:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Mary Margaret O'Reilly[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a woman who rose from the ranks to become the effective head of the Bureau of the Mint for many years, at a time when such things weren't usually accomplished by women. I doubt this will ever get that many hits, but I think it's worthy. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- recusing myself from coord duties; I spotted a couple of formatting thingies and then became interested enough to review in earnest...

  • When copyediting I tried to get consistency with (non)capitalisation of position titles but I'm open to discussion on them -- even with all the titles I contend with in my military bios I don't think it's always obvious what's best.
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate, and tone is neutral.
  • "She was not interviewed when the Mint in 1944 investigated how several 1933 double eagles, never officially released, had come onto the market, an omission Burdette finds unusual." -- is the implication that there may have been some level of corruption, or incompetence?
  • Sources appear prima facie reliable to this admitted non-expert, and no major formatting issues leapt out, but looks like you need a "subscription required" caveat for FN16.
  • Image licensing looks acceptable to me.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Her successor, Howard, actually became somewhat notorious (and remains in bad repute among numismatists who care about that sort of thing) because he confiscated those 1933 double eagles. Why he would not talk to O'Reilly about it, given that she might know stuff, is a bit unclear. I guess incompetence, but we really don't know. Burdette is not very illuminating on this point, but as he was an expert witness for the defense in the trial about the ten 1933 double eagles a few years back, I'm inclined to take his word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Just pinging Ian Rose to see if my replies and changes were satisfactory.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my tardiness in checking back -- I just tweaked some formatting and I think it's all cool now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Looking forward to seeing this one on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Preceded by  position created – this is probably not needed, given that the infobox already shows that she was the 1st Assistant Director
  • Religion  Catholic is in the infobox, but not in the article prose (also not referenced)
I felt her work for Catholic charities established she was Catholic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That's seem a rather weak link – and WP:OR, if not directly supported by the sources. - Evad37 [talk] 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Religion cut. (although it is hard to imagine an Irish Protestant working for Catholic Charities).
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, "she" is used three times in a row – suggest chaning one to O'Reilly
  • attended night school to get training as – get doesn't sound right in this context, suggest "to train as"
  • numismatics – link on first use (numismatic author Roger Burdette) rather then second (letters to numismatists)
  • ''.., but numismatic author Roger Burdette, in his account of pioneering female Mint officials, does not mention this. – suggest rewording to ".., but numismatic author Roger Burdette does not mention this in his account of pioneering female Mint officials." to avoid having so many commas in that sentence
  • She was called upon to testify frequently before Congress. might read better as "She was frequently called upon to testify before Congress."
  • What does 1931-S mean?
  • her frequent role as Acting Mint Director – positions should be lower-case when used generically, per MOS:JOBTITLES
This is one where that is difficult. I conform to the literature in capitalizing Mint, when referred to as a bureau. It's kind of difficult to go lower case surrounding that. Open to suggestions.
Capitalising Mint is fine (proper noun), but even so, the positions are common names per the MOS – with the French president given as an example, so similarly we should perhaps have "Mint director" instead of "Mint Director" (when not followed by a person's name to form a title, or to refer to a specific director as a substitute for their name).
As for the acting position, if "acting Mint director" doesn't suit, there are alternative wordings – "acting director of the Mint", as in the lead, or perhaps just "acting director", if there'e enough context in the rest of the sentence.
Perhaps Ian Rose might like to comment, given that he mentioned the issue above. - Evad37 [talk] 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've massaged it a bit. How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks fine now - Evad37 [talk] 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Bit late responding to ping, looks like we're all good anyway... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • FDR's – per WP:MOS#Abbreviations, 'write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence'
  • no facilities to accept anything other than gold bars with a government stamp. – should "anything" be "any gold"? This currently implies that the Fed dealt exclusively in gold.
  • Hoover administration – link?
  • Note b. should probably have a reference

Looking good otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Except for the one noted above, I think that's everything. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Resolved issues struck, see reply and remaining comments above - Evad37 [talk] 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Support - Evad37 [talk] 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Capon Chapel[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a notable historic landmark in West Virginia's oldest county, and it also illustrates the Baptist and Methodist heritage associated with the church. All guidance and comments are greatly appreciated throughout this process. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, it may be of interest to FAC reviewers that Capon Chapel has already reached Good Article status and it has been successfully nominated to DYK and has undergone a copyedit by the Guild of Copyeditors. A peer review of the article was also recently completed. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments taking a a look now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and explain what I do in the edit summaries - please revert me if I accidentally change the meaning - and jot questions below. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, I appreciate your review of this article and for the meaningful edits you have made thus far. Please feel free to be bold in your copyedits, as it is important for me to have someone not myself look at this article with fresh eyes and ways to make it better. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The Capon Chapel property consists of the church structure (c. 1852), its associated cemetery, and the historic wrought iron fence enclosing the cemetery. A separate section of the cemetery is enclosed by a chain link fence. - comes over as a bit wooden, why not "The Capon Chapel property consists of the church structure (c. 1852), and its associated cemetery, which is enclosed partly by the historic wrought iron fence and partly by a chain link fence." ...
Cas Liber, thank you for the suggestion. Your version flows much better, and so I have incorporated it that way in the text. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
a land grant that Charles II of England awarded to seven of his supporters in 1649; the grant was renewed by an official patent in 1688 - why not just, "a land grant that Charles II of England awarded to seven of his supporters in 1649 and renewed by an official patent in 1688" ?
I've also incorporated this suggestion in the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The Baptist denomination was the first to establish churches in Hampshire County that continue to exist - this is confusing, do you mean, "The Baptist denomination established the oldest extant churches in Hampshire County"? or something else?
This is what I was attempting to convey, and this conveys it more clearly. I've also incorporated this suggestion into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Since no singular denomination oversaw the church during this early period sounds odd, I'd say --> "Since no single denomination oversaw the church during this early period"
I've incorporated this change into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Other than that, I can't see anything else and it impresses as exhaustive, so it's a tentative support from me on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cas Liber for taking the time to assist me in improving this article, and thank you for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Flag_of_West_Virginia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original flag?
  • File:Logo_of_the_United_Methodist_Church.svg: according to the source page, this was registered as a trademark - are we certain it wasn't also registered as copyrighted? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you for engaging in the image review for this Featured Article candidacy. As these two images in question are used for the West Virginia and Methodism portals, I do not have control over their usage and modification. Therefore, I've removed both portal links from the portal bar. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


  • In the section "Baptist affiliation" I was confused by the first two sentences "The Baptist denomination established the oldest extant churches in Hampshire County.[12] After the end of the American Revolutionary War, other Baptist preachers continued their attempt" what is the difference between "Baptist denomination" and "other Baptist preachers"? Are one group "primitive" which is mentioned later in the paragraph?
  • Rather than Baptist denomination, I've rendered this "The Baptists" so that it is less confusing. Let me know if this works! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the grammar of "...came from Pennsylvania after arriving in Pennsylvania from Wales... " may need clarification.
  • I've changed this sentence to "one of the families that came from Wales through Pennsylvania in the late 17th century." -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I was also confused by the grammar in the Architecture section "facing toward Timber Ridge, and facing opposite of the Cacapon River and Christian Church Road".
  • The main facade faces toward Toward Timber ridge, and not against the main avenues of approach (Cacapon River and Christian Church Road). I've rendered this as "The church's main façade is located on its east side, facing toward Timber Ridge, and away from the Cacapon River and Christian Church Road." Does this work? -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the deprecated parameter "author-separator=" from refs 3,4,5,6. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Also some problems with the "Harv" linking of the references - If you click on the names "Scaffidi", "Brannon" and "Grose" in refs 7,8,17,19,21,25,27,& 30 it doesn't link to the full details in the bibliography. This may be because of details about the PDF file coming after the page number in the Harvnb references, but I'm not sure of the cause.Rod talk 20:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the PDF mention from refs 7,8,17,19,21,25,27,& 30. There should not be any Harv linking errors now. Thank you for your suggestions and additional guidance, Rod! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • These are still showing as a problem (but I can't remember which tool is highlighting the errors for me). I will try to look at this again later.— Rod talk 06:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Rod, I made some further fixes to the references themselves, and all links seem to be working for me now without error. Let me know if you have any other issues with these links. - West Virginian (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Further comments

  • In Geography and setting "Capon Chapel and its associated cemetery are located to the east Christian Church Road" - should it be "to" or "on" - this may be a US v Brit English but it is not how I would say it.
  • Rod, thank you tremendously for your additional comments. Regarding this first comment, it is correct to use "to" here. As this is an American historic site, American English should suffice here. I'm not opposed to changing it to "on" though if that garners your approval! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would suggest waiting for a native US English speaker before making any changes to this.— Rod talk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 18 is to an image on commons of the sign outside the church. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy but could a secondary source be found for the claim about meeting under an oak tree & the likely first construction date of 1750? If the date is accurate it conflicts with the construction date in the info box.
  • I was not able to find another claim of this date, but it is the date given in oral tradition throughout that end of the country. While a structure may have been constructed at that date, the current church was not built until the 1850s. I can remove this text if this is problematic. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If true I think it makes the church more "notable" but would worry whether the "primary source" of a sign outside the church should be considered RS in this case.— Rod talk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Rod, I've removed the two instances where the historical marker was used as a reference. The only information that was sourced from the sign was the information regarding burials and meetings under an old oak tree at the site in the 18th century. I've removed mention of this oak tree as there is no other documented evidence for it outside oral tradition. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In Methodist affiliation, what is the significance of the statement "In 1976, the circuit's pastor was Thomas Malcolm"?
  • It's not necessarily significant, but it fills in a blank as to who the pastor was at that time in the church's history. No written records were kept of the preachers of this small church, so when a name was available, I included it. This too can be struck if problematic. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK I just thought as it is pretty much the only historic pastor named that it might be significant.— Rod talk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not significant on its own, but because little information exists, I felt it wouldn't hurt to mention him. I can remove him from the prose if this is problematic. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In Preservation, what does "refurnished" mean - does this mean planks were replaced?
  • The usage of refurnished here means that the planks were sanded and "refurnished" or re-lacquered if you will. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a little explanation would be useful, perhaps saying "and its wide, heart pine plank floors were sanded and re-lacquered". (or similar).— Rod talk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In Exterior, what is a "drop pendant"?
  • The drop pendant in this case is a small "pendant-shaped" wooden embellishment at the top of the gable-front. A drop pendant, especially in American English, is anything shaped like a drop. Drop pendant usually refers to jewelry, but can also refer to doorknobs, lighting, and in this case, a wooden embellishment. I'm definitely open to suggested rewording. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK perhaps just the addition of the word wooden ie "accentuated by a single wooden drop pendant at the top of the gable" (or similar) (to stop me thinking about jewelry).— Rod talk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In Interior how can the alter be a pulpit? To me (based on UK churches) these are different concepts. Should "swag" be wikilinked to Festoon?
  • As it is a very small church, the pulpit and the altar are one in the same. I've wiki-linked swag to Festoon. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In Cemetery, should Picket fence be wikilinked as this is not a term used worldwide?
  • The fence in this case isn't a "picket fence" per se. The pickets here just refer to the fence poles or posts, which are also known as pickets in American English. I can definitely reword this if necessary. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • More evidence of my lack of US English. Again I would wait for any comment by a native speaker.— Rod talk 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd hate to hold up a review over the word "picket" so I've changed it to fence post. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of these additional comments may be because of my (very) limited knowledge of the subject matter and/or US v Brit English, so please reject if inappropriate.— Rod talk 07:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As I stated above Rod, I really appreciate you taking the time to review this article and leave comments and additional guidance. I've responded to all your above comments, and can reword and rephrase as necessary. I will try to find additional sourcing for the historical marker, but I am fine with removing that content for now if need be. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Rod, I've removed the information from the historical marker, since it was not sourced elsewhere. I've also removed the problematic word "picket" and I can also remove the pastor if his mention too seems problematic. I'm also concerned that "to" continues to be problematic as well, so I do hope another American English speaker comes to my rescue on that account. Thank you for taking the time to conduct such a thorough review. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I think most of my comments are resolved (just waiting on a US English speaker for "to" or "on") but I can now support this as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 17:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Rod, once again, thank you for taking the time to perform this thoughtful review and for providing guidance to improve the overall quality of this article so that it meets FA status. It is really appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Had forgotten about this sorry. I reviewed this at an earlier date and believe it is certainly the best article we can produce on it. Excellent work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas[edit]

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 14:50, 28 May 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) 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Welcome back, guys. First question: were you able to resolve the copyright issues mentioned in the last FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "As was common, Rosas formed a private militia, enlisting his workers, and took part in the factious disputes that had led to endless civil wars in his country. ... Rosas became the quintessential caudillo, as provincial warlords in the region were known.": If the reader has to guess which people this was common for, they might guess wrong. Also, I can't tell if 1, 2 or all 3 things you mention were common. For instance, if you're saying that the first two things were common for caudillos, maybe something along the lines of: Rosas enlisted his workers in a private militia, as was common for caudillos (provincial warlords), and took part in the factious disputes that had led to endless civil wars in his country. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, Dank. It's very good to see you again and willing to lend a hand here. Rural proprietors in Argentina had private armies (usually to protect them against Indian attacks or to meddle into their country's civil wars). I followed your suggestion and changed the text. The only problem left about the copyright issue was in regard to the last picture, a photo of Rosas' monument. Honestly, I had forgotten about it. I'm going to ask about the photo on Commons to find out what can be done. If indeed the photo can't stay, we'll simply remove it from the article. --Lecen (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The picture can't stay. Argentine law allows for freedom of panorama regarding buildings, but not monuments. I changed the photo for one of Rosas'family vault at the cemetery in Buenos Aires --Lecen (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks much, I'll be back soon-ish. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A very solid and readable storyline. I read this one quickly, but I hope I caught most of what there was to catch. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Primer_Conquista_del_Desierto.jpg: what is the given source - a book, an article...?
  • File:Rosas_arenga_a_los_morenos.jpg: redundant to have both life+70 and life+100 - if the latter is correct the former is superfluous
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_exiled.JPG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    It's a book. The original uploader forgot to add more details about it. I fixed the other issues as well. --Lecen (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I think it would be helpful to mention in the lead that when he was born Argentina was a Spanish colony and independence in 1816.
  • "When the Empire of Brazil began aiding Uruguay against Argentina, Rosas declared war in August 1851," I do not like the construction "When..." which implies the reader already knows what is referred to. How about "In 1851 the Empire of Brazil..."
  • "his remains were repatriated by the government" "Peronist government" would be more informative.
  • "Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata" You need to explain the (later) countries this covered.
  • Agustina López de Osornio is in red - is she notable enough for an article?
  • "Rosas was schooled at home, as was then common. Later, at age 8, he was enrolled in the finest private school in Buenos Aires." I would say "Rosas was schooled at home until the age of 8, as was common, and he was then enrolled in the finest private school in Buenos Aires."
  • " The British were defeated in August 1806, but returned in 1807." Maybe " The British were defeated in August 1806, and again when they returned in 1807." (It was an unauthorized expedition, but this is probably not relevant.)
  • "He delved into the production of salted meat" "delved into" is an odd construction. Maybe "He started a business producing salted meat"
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, Dudley. I implemented almost all suggestions you made. Please check my edits. However, I didn't add "Peronist" to the lead because I fear that a careless reader might mistake it for "Perón's government". Nor I added the mention that he was born when Argentina was a Spanish colony, because I couldn't find a way into doing it without losing track of what was truly important. I hope you won't mind. --Lecen (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Lecen I do not intend to comment further. It is a requirement for FAC that an article is stable, and although I do not know whether it is a formal requirement I would take that to mean that any application to the Guild of Copy Editors has been completed and closed, otherwise editors are reviewing a moving target. It might be better for you to withdraw the nomination and re-nominate once copy editing has been completed.
  • I also have doubts about the balance of the article. The lead presents him as a wholly unsympathetic figure who is a hero to the Fascist right, and yet you say below that he has been honoured by the left-wing Kirchners. This raises the question of whether the article is based principally on sources biased against him. You have also objected to specifying that he was honoured by the "Peronist" government because a careless reader might mistake it for Peron's government. However the term Peronist is constantly used about Argentina on Wikipedia (including in this article below) and elsewhere - it would be impossible to sensibly discuss the country if the word was banned. You might as well ban Marxist and Keynsian on the same grounds. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know what do you mean by the article being unstable. I requested help from the copy editor guild to improve the article and an editor volunteered to help, which he did for the past few days. The shift between right-wing Fascists and Leftists in terms of Rosas' adoration is discussed in "Legacy" section. About balance as a whole, anyone who wishes to read a single book about Rosas would know whether I was biased or not when writing the article. Heck, even by taking a brief look at his article in the Britannica. Unfortunately, though, you seem unwilling to go beyond the article's lead, which shows why your argument is full of misconceptions. Patience. Thank you for your time. --Lecen (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stable" is a term used in the FAC guidelines. It means that an article should only be nominated when it is in its final form, and the only changes during the FAC process should be ones made as a result of the FAC discussion. As to your other point, I have read the lead and the legacy section, and I am confused why leaders of the left-wing Justicialist party wish to honour someone who appears to be the opposite of everything they stand for. I think this needs explaining. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • On Legacy section: "President Carlos Menem decided to repatriate Rosas's remains and take advantage of the occasion to unite the Argentines. Menem believed that if the Argentines could forgive Rosas and his regime, they might do the same regarding the more recent and vividly remembered past." Either you missed it, which is also repeated at the lead, or you didn't read the section as you claim you did. --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I did read it but forgiving is different from honouring. The South Africans established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to heal the wounds of the past, but they do not honour Verwoerd and put him on postage stamps. Dudley Miles (talk)
Comment: Certainly history is replete with examples of the process of rehabilitation for various political purposes that include both forgiveness and honor. Closer in time to Rosas: Robert E. Lee has been portrayed as everything from traitor, to freedom fighter, to misguided patriot, to champion of so-called states rights over federalism, by both major US political factions at times (and sometimes simultaneously). Lee has at times appeared on stamps, and even on coinage. As to article stability, there will always be editors tweaking for additions/deletions of material, style preferences or perceived clarity, even after gaining FA status. That this occurred during a FAC need not be construed as a stability issue, as there has been no substantive change to the narrative, which remains reflective of the sources. • Astynax talk 16:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Last Gasp" is the fourth episode of the first series of Inside No. 9, and is a free-standing, half-hour comedy about a terminally-ill little girl's birthday. Critics generally agreed that this was a weak episode of a strong series, but one journalist went so far as to describe it as "not funny ... not clever and ... so utterly, irredeemably, naffly silly that it ends up being incredibly irritating and nothing else". Personally, I thought it very funny, but without the depth/originality which characterised the other episodes of the series (it also stars a number of faces which will be familiar to fans of British television). This article (after Sardines (Inside No. 9) and A Quiet Night In) is the third Inside No. 9 page to be nominated here, and I would like to thank Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) for a GA review, and Rationalobserver (talk · contribs) for a peer review. This is a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose. I gave a thorough review of the article at PR and found very few issues. After another look this morning, I see that it's been improved further since. It still seems odd to me to have an unsourced plot section, but I'll defer to those with more knowledge about those types of sections. It's an engaging read that's worthy of FA. Nice job! Disclosure: I am a Wikicup participant. RO(talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Neelix[edit]

This article appears well-written on the whole. I'm not a fan of dark comedy, but that shouldn't interfere with my reviewing this article. I have read through the lead and the first two sections of the body, and have the following suggestions:

  • It is confusing to use the word "series" in two different senses, especially in a single sentence such as the first sentence in the lead. I would recommend that the phrase be reworded from "the fourth episode of the first series of British dark comedy anthology series" to "the fourth episode of the first series of British dark comedy anthology television programme", which is also more consistent with the main article and clarifies that we are talking about a television programme as opposed to a radio programme. The word "programme" might then replace "series" throughout the article wherever Inside No. 9 is being referred to as a whole.
  • This article should consistently employ the literary present tense. A guide to doing so may be found here: [11] For example, "The episode was more comedic" should instead be "The episode is more comedic"; the episode is an ever-present entity rather than a past event.
  • There should be an "of" after "Jack Seale" in the lead.
  • Is it WishmasterUK or WishmakerUK?
  • The first paragraph of the "Production" section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section do not appear to me to be sufficiently specific to the subject of this article to justify their inclusion here; this information might better be located in the main Inside No. 9 article. It would be sufficient to say that Inside No. 9 is an anthology programme and that "Last Gasp" is therefore unrelated to the other episodes of the programme both in story and in casting.
    • I disagree- I think they provide good context for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I note that similar appear in my other two Inside No. 9 FAs, but I can modify it if you feel strongly or anyone else agrees. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I tend to think that this is an issue that should have been identified during the previous two Inside No. 9 FAs. It seems ridiculous to me to have the same paragraph repeated in every article about an episode of this programme. I would certainly be glad to hear how other editors feel on the subject. Neelix (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence starting with the words "In addition to Pemberton" is confusing because of its large number of commas. Semicolons separating entries in the list of cast members would help make this sentence more readable.
  • The words "normal" and "utterly freezing" should not be in quotation marks unless the sentences clarify who we are quoting. Otherwise, the quotation marks are likely to be interpreted as scare quotes.
  • "The episode was film on location" should read "The episode was filmed on location".
  • I would recommend cutting at least half the quotation by Kerr that concludes the "Production" section; we already have a lot of quotations in this section from people directly involved in making this episode, including another quotation from Kerr, and this quotation is unnecessarily long.
  • To be more explicit, I would recommend switching from "as she is a 'neutral' party" to "as he considers her to be a neutral party".
    • Partially done- I've used the phrase "a neutral" in quotes, as that's explicitly what Pemberton's character says. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Final breath" should not be in quotation marks and the two commas in this sentence are unnecessary.
    • I disagree- it's not actually his final breath, and the commas split off a subordinate clause. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • In academic writing, quotation marks are not an appropriate manner of calling a phrase into question. If it isn't actually his finally breath, then we shouldn't be calling it that. In what sense is "and accompanying video footage" a subordinate clause? It appears simply to be the second item in a two-item list to me. Neelix (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not convinced that the wording was problematic, but I have rephrased this to something hopefully less contentious. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any explanation in the episode as to the source of the loud bang? It might help to add the word "erroneously" after the second comma in this sentence.
    • I've added "erroneously", but there's no clear explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope these help! I will try to find time to review the rest of the article soon. Neelix (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm back! Here are my suggestions for the rest of the article:

  • "The Pardoner's Tale" should be in quotation marks rather than italics. It would also be worth explaining what "The Pardoner's Tale" is. Does Dessau explain what connection there is with the episode?
    • I've switched to quote marks and clarified that the Tale is by Chaucer, but Dessau doesn't expand on his comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Given the context, I am concerned that readers will think that "The Pardoner's Tale" is a television episode. It might be helpful to clarify that it is instead a short story. Neelix (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I would have thought that the fact it's by Chaucer would be enough? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Without clicking the link, it is probable that many if not most readers will not know who Chaucer is, and will be as likely to think him a contemporary television director as a 14th-century writer. I would be glad for the entire world to know who Chaucer is, but many do not, especially those outside the UK or without a certain level of education. Neelix (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The literary present tense should prevail in the critical responses.
    • Do you mean that I should treat the reviews as "ever present" in the way that I should consider the episode itself ever-present? This seems a little odd. Is there a guideline on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is what I mean, so long as the reviews are written as opposed to verbal. It is improper grammar not to do so. Wikipedia guidelines tend not to detail grammatical rules, but this one should be clear from reading the guide I link to above (along with other academic guides to the literary present that you might find through Google). Neelix (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I've lost you. It's "improper grammar" to refer to "written as opposed to verbal" reviews in the past tense? This is not something I've come across before, and I wouldn't call myself a stranger to English. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I am not suggesting that you are a stranger to English. This is a grammatical rule that applies only to tertiary literary commentary; it is unlikely that you would have come across it unless you have studied English literature at an undergraduate upper-year level or higher. Few people other than English scholars and encyclopedia writers write tertiary literary commentary, but that is exactly what this article is, and tertiary literary commentary requires the use of the literary present. Neelix (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Could give me a source clarifying this point? And is literary commentary meant to be different from any other academic commentary in this regard? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
              • (Pinging Crisco 1492- do you have a view on this?) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
                • Last I checked, we don't have a part of the MOS requiring this. Personally, I would stick (and have stuck) to the past. A reviewer only writes something once, and opinions can change. Hence "XX opined Y, but recanted a year later; XX then opined Z". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • Thanks- that's one thing that struck me. In other articles (EG- A Quiet Night In, concerning Chater) I refer to different comments from different times. I don't think it's fair to imply that people still hold views that they once did; we simply don't have the sources to support that. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The "S" should be capitalized in "series 1" because it is a proper noun.
  • The construction "For critic x" is overused; it appears seven times in the "Themes and analysis" section alone. This construction could easily be replaced with other constructions to avoid repetition. For example, "According to critic x", "Critic x argues that", etc.
  • PopMatters should be italicized.
    • I don't italicise websites. We don't have Wikipedia, YouTube or Facebook, so I don't think we should have PopMatters. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook are not online magazines; PopMatters is. The Wikipedia article about PopMatters consistently italicizes this name, while the names of the other websites are not italicized on their respective Wikipedia articles. Neelix (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I see now that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics is actually fairly unambiguous on this point. What a disappointing guideline. I'd rather not make the change myself, but I won't revert you if you make it (as long as you change all mentions). Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be citations at the end of any sentence that includes a direct quotation, even if the next sentence is derived from the same source.
    • I'll add them when it's unclear, but I really don't think that's necessary. It's not the norm outside of WP, and I don't know of any guideline requiring it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You can find the relevant guideline here; all sentences containing direct quotations should be immediately followed by citations. The guideline actually goes even further and makes this requirement of paraphrasing as well. Neelix (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
        • So far as I can see, all that it says is that "[i]n-text attribution should be used" in those cases; it doesn't say that the attribution has to be at the end of the sentence. I do use in-text attribution, and it should be clear in each case where the quotes have come from. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
          • The guideline also says that this in-text attribution is "in addition to an inline citation after the sentence". In my previous FACs and GANs, reviewing editors have often mentioned this requirement for there to be citations directly following direct quotations; I am under the impression that this is the standard interpretation this guideline. Neelix (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I've just realised that we're looking at the wrong section anyway. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Types of citation: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." Meanwhile, "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact." This disagreement is about in-line citations, not in-text attributions, and there doesn't seem to be a requirement that in-line citations are repeated unless material is particularly controversial. From WP:CITEFOOT: "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Pinging Crisco 1492 - Would you mind weighing in on this point as well? The requirement to have a citation immediately follow all direct citations has been made upon me by so many reviewers in the past that I feel like it would be irresponsible of me to lightly dismiss them all as being incorrect. Neelix (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
                • I've made the same point elsewhere, but checking WP:CITE (specifically WP:INTEXT) I see the sentence " An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question." This is not how I remember the guideline, but it does appear to allow direct quotes to be referenced both after the sentence or at the end of the paragraph, as needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
                • WP:V says "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", but doesn't specify where. In short, I think either way works according to our policies and guidelines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • To repeat: I'm happy to add extra citations when it's unclear where material has been taken from, but I think it's pretty clear everywhere in this article, and I've no desire to have practically every sentence with one or two footnotes unnecessarily. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the statement that celebrity culture is "a decidedly modern phenomenon" a statement by Upton? If so, this should be made explicit. If not, it should be removed.
    • It's not a direct quote- I'm not clear on what the problem is? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • As this sentence is currently phrased, it is ambiguous as to whether it is Upton or it is us who is calling celebrity culture "a decidedly modern phenomenon". This opinion statement should be unambiguously attributed to Upton. For example, the phrase could be changed to "which Upton considers a modern phenomenon". Neelix (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I see what you mean. I've rephrased somewhat- it should be clearer that I'm referring to Upton's claims, now. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately, the issue persists. Do you dislike the solution I proposed? Neelix (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I think your wording would have led to a little too much repetition. I've restructured the paragraph: "David Upton, writing for PopMatters, called it "easily the most acerbic and most overtly comic" episode of the series. He listed three reasons that the episode did not seem like something produced by Pemberton and Shearsmith: its avoidance of the horrific; the fact that it does not star Shearsmith; and its direct focus on celebrity culture, which Upton considers a modern phenomenon. Instead, he suggested that it feels closer to a story from Charlie Brooker's anthology programme Black Mirror. The focus of "Last Gasp" on comedy to the exclusion of horror, for Upton, left it "stranded" when compared to the other episodes." How does that read? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Much better. Thanks for taking the time to rework this. Neelix (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be good to clarify that Black Mirror is also an anthology television programme.
  • I do not see a reason for "without the breath" to be in parentheses.
  • I would recommend rewording the sentence that ends with the phrase "as a critique of the celebrity memorabilia market". At present, it is difficult to determine which clause is intended to be connected to this one. Are they selling the balloon as a critique? Did she feel it may have happened as a critique?
  • It would be nice to be consistent with the other sentences and work Daily Express and Liverpool Echo into their sentences rather than sectioning the newspaper names off with parentheses. Perhaps "Paddy Shennan of the Liverpool Echo" or similar?
  • There is a lot of direct quotation from Owen in the "Themes and analysis" section and from Blackburn in the "Reception" section. It would be preferable to reduce these direct quotations significantly, either by paraphrasing or trimming most of them. The word "though" after the mention of Owen is unnecessary.
  • The quotation "The world's sick..." should include a citation to the episode with the number of minutes and seconds in.
  • "Said" is a verbal word and should be replaced with "writes" wherever the medium is textual.
  • There are far too many quotations in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. It would be best to paraphrase or trim most of this.
  • The caption of the Sophie Thompson image is a full sentence and should end with a period.
  • "the The Daily Telegraph" should simply read "The Daily Telegraph". There should also be a comma just before the quotation in this sentence.
    • I've fixed the "the the" issue, but there's a special place in Hell for those commas. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • My apologies; I forgot about this difference between Canadian and British English punctuation. Neelix (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no need to explain that The Star is a South African newspaper twice, nor to wikilink it twice.
  • I don't think the semicolon works after the word "hilarious".
  • I am not very familiar with viewership statistics, and it is likely that many of our readers aren't either. When the article reads "4.9% of the audience", what does that mean? 4.9% of the audience of what? Surely 100% of the audience of the episode viewed the episode. Also, the paragraph later reads "4.1% of the market". Is the audience different than the market?
    • I'm also not particularly familiar. I strongly assume it's 4.9% of the British audience at time of submission. "market" and "audience" are meant as the same thing- it's just to avoid repetition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Might you be able to add a footnote in the first instance with an explanation of what this kind of statistic means, with an accompanying citation? I will leave it up to you about whether or not to make the wording consistent with either "audience" or "market"; I can understand your desire to avoid repetition here, although I think it more important to avoid the potential confusion that these statistics are not comparable. Neelix (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase "To tie in with the episode" should be removed; it only conveys information that is obvious from the rest of the sentence.
  • It would be helpful to explain who Russell Brand is.
  • There are several empty fields in the infobox that could be filled out, such as Music and Editor.
  • It might be nice to include an image of Pemberton near the end of the article with a caption of his quotation about delivering something horrible. Just a personal preference; no pressure.
    • I'd love to, but I don't have one! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • My apologies again; I wrote "Pemberton" when I meant Shearsmith, who said the phrase about delivering something horrible. This is the image I was referring to, although I see that it's already in use in all of the other articles about episodes in the first season of Inside No. 9. This image of Pemberton has been released under a Creative Commons license, although I'm not sure that a photo of him acting as Pauline from The League of Gentlemen would be appropriate here. All the same, I'll add it to the Wikimedia Commons for use elsewhere. Neelix (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to review this article! Please let me know if you would like any clarification on my comments above. Neelix (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to have a look through. I look forward to reading your comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay- getting on this now. I may not finish this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've (hopefully) fixed everything apart from those comments I've replied to specifically. I'm a little embarrassed you managed to find so many silly mistakes. Thanks again for taking the time to have a look at this. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making those changes. I appreciate your willingness to engage with my comments. I have responded above. Neelix (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering your alterations, I have re-read the article, and have the following remaining suggestions and questions:

  • I remain concerned about the fact that an entire paragraph is repeated verbatim in this and every other article about an episode in this series. I continue to recommend its removal, or else the solicitation of more editors' input on the subject.
    • Is your objection just to the repetition, or do you think that the information isn't helpful? It seems to me that this is information which is relevant to each episode in the first series; if someone is interested only in the single episode rather than the series as a whole (as is quite reasonable in a series of this sort) this provides a good level of background. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think helpfulness is a sufficient criterion for determining whether or not content should be included in an article; there is plenty of potential content that a reader might find helpful that shouldn't be included in the article. For example, we might devote paragraphs to the careers of each of the actors who appear in the episode demonstrating the context of the episode in their broader filmographies. Such content would be helpful, but is arbitrarily chosen context, just as adding an entire paragraph on general information about the series is arbitrary. The vast majority of readers know how to click on the Inside No. 9 link to get more information about the series as a whole if they want it. Neelix (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "though" after the mention of Owen should still be removed.
  • I would again recommend adding a footnote and citation to clarify what the phrase "x% of the audience" means.
    • I'll look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I have added some explanation of where the data comes from, but I've not found an explanation of what is meant by the percentages in Broadcast. It seemed fairly intuitive to me, but clearly not for you. I'm still working on this... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it just a coincidence that both one of the characters and one of the actors are named Tamsin? I have never heard this name before.
    • I assume so; it's not uncommon. According to Tamsin (name), it's more common in some places than others. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Is this connection mentioned in any of the sources? It would be nice to make this connection explicit in the article if possible, but we can't if it's just our conjecture. Neelix (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Just my conjecture from what I know about Inside No. 9, but I would guess that this a complete coincidence. Certainly not something any source has mentioned. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The parenthetical "the same colour as the one Frankie blew up for Tamsin" could easily be avoided by simply inserting the word "purple" in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section (ie. "Frankie visits Tamsin in her bedroom, and blows up a purple balloon for her.").
  • The quotation marks around the word "real" in the third paragraph of the "Plot" section are unnecessary.
    • I've trimmed the clarification- I think it's obvious why they would be selling the balloons to multiple buyers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not see sufficient reason to italicize the word "without" in the third paragraph of the "Themes and analysis" section; the meaning of the sentences is clear without the added emphasis.
    • I've had a bit of trouble with that sentence- I think the new phrasing captures what Blackburn is saying. Basically, she thinks a story focusing on breath is silly, and a story focused on the balloon would be more sensible. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Only the "s" need be in square brackets in the phrase "riff[s] on the fact..."
  • Even if you do not implement the literary present through the "Reception" section, the sentence beginning "She felt that the episode..." should not alternate between the past and the present tenses.

Great job on the improvements thus far! Please let me know if you have any questions about my remaining concerns. Neelix (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks- I really appreciate the time you're putting in to this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
At this point, my only two remaining concerns are 1) the first paragraph of the "Production" section and 2) the viewing figures footnote. Issue #1 could be addressed by either removing the paragraph or soliciting a third opinion. As for Issue #2, I like the footnote you have added and appreciate your willingness to continue looking for a source that can clarify what the phrase in question means. Neelix (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, as I can't find what the percentages mean and I'm not confident enough in my own interpretation (now that you've challenged it!) I've removed them. The numbers are still useful even without the percentages- I note that a lot of other television articles do the same. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That's great. If we can establish consensus on the first paragraph of the "Production" section via third-party input, I will have no remaining qualms. Neelix (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hu Zhengyan[edit]

Nominator(s): Yunshui  12:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Chinese historical figure, a painter, caligrapher and publisher who lived at the tail end of the Ming Dynasty. It's been a GA for a while, but I think it would only need slight tweaking to pull it up to FA status. Yunshui  12:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment The idea is that you do the tweaking, then nominate it here when you think it is fully ready - reviewers usually disagree on some points of course. At a quick look there seem to be some obvious links missing, and several aspects of the unfamiliar context of his life need more explaining, whether it is the colour printing (one of those missed links, I think) or the political context. But an interesting figure. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I've tweaked - but from previous experience, reviewers tend to throw up things I've not even thought of; the response to those points was the tweaking I was referring to. For example, I wouldn't have deemed it necessary to fill in the political background, but that's because, to me, that information is just a given (Oriental history being one of my areas of interest). I'll see what I can do to provide a little more context. If you could provide additional links that you think are needed, I'd be happy to sort those out as well. Much obliged for the comment. Yunshui  14:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead is too short; it is supposed to summarize the whole article, and doesn't.
  • The section on the printing -his main claim to fame - also seems short.
  • Rawson's book title is wrong.

Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. I've made a start on the lead (more to do) but I'm confused about your comment on the Rawson reference; the title appears to be correct (although I've modified the template to show him as editor rather than author). Please can you clarify? Yunshui  08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It's her - Jessica Rawson. I see you just copied the BM's mistake, giving: Rawson, J., ed. (1992). The British Museum book of Chi. London: The British Museum Press. ISBN 978-0-7141-2446-9. Actually it's (in the current edition): Rawson, Jessica (ed). The British Museum Book of Chinese Art, 2007 (2nd edn), British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714124469. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you. I'll sort out the reference in the article accordingly. Yunshui  12:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
(That makes a lot more sense now; I'd been assuming that the book title referred to one of the several Tang era states called Qi, and couldn't work out why it would contain information about a guy who lived more tha 500 years later... Yunshui  12:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I had to double-check the source when I read about Ten Bamboo Studio and ukiyo-e—I'm not quite sure the wording is supported by the Michener source. It says the work was reprinted in Japan, but it says the influence on Harunobu was rather Mustard Seed Garden. Ten Bamboo Studio certainly anticipates nishiki-e, but the source doesn't actually say it "la[id] the foundations" for it. Also, I'd link to nishiki-e—ukiyo-e was already a century old before Harunobu introduced full-colour printing (and obviously Chinese printing would have had a negligible influence on ukiyo-e painting, which makes up a significant portion of ukiyo-e works). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense; I've changed the article accordingly. Yunshui  10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd hope there'd be more images in an article about an artist—perhaps even galleries. The whole second half of the article is unillustrated. Goolging around, I can see decent images like these: [12][13][14] (the Harvard Art Museum returns 137 hits for Hu Zhengyan). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I've now prettified the article with a gallery. Yunshui  11:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments.
  • He was best known for his manual: best known at the time, or is this what he is now best remembered for?
Changed it to "is best known" to clarify the timeframe.
  • The history is a bit hard to follow—we're told that Nanjing was "at the time" the capital, and later we're presented with the fall of Beijing. Reading up a bit, it looks like Beijing was the capital at the time of its fall, and that's what makes the event significant, right? I think it would be easier to follow if the events were given in chronological order, and perhaps with a tad more context.
I've taken out the line "(which was at the time China's capital)" - it wasn't the capital at the time of Hu's birth, and was only ever the capital of the Southern Ming after 1644.
  • He died in comparative poverty: compared to what?
Well, compared to the comparative affluence of his earlier life - but you're right, the word isn't really necessary; I've nixed it.
  • a noted exponent of seal-caving: does "exponent" imply there was indifference or opposition to seal-carving?
You're right, "exponent" probably isn't the best word to use here... changed it to read "a noted seal-carver" (and fixed the accidental reference to pot-holing that I'd missed at the same time!)
Huh? Curly, there's nothing wrong with exponent here! Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
An "exponent" is "a promoter of an idea or theory". If that is in fact what he did, then it will have to be expanded on, but the context leads me to believe it was merely a poor choice of words. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it was poor wording on my part. Yunshui  07:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
"promoter" etc is meaning 1. Meaning 2 is "Practitioner, adept, expert, master, specialist.... " (Chambers Thesaurus). Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
But if it can be misconstrued - as seems to have been the case here - then it's not the best wording. I'm happy to have it taken out if it makes things clearer. Yunshui  14:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • he followed the Huizhou (Xingyuang) school: what is "Xingyuang"? Clicking through to the Huizhou article doesn't tell me. Also, Huizhou links to a city rather than a school of seal-carving as I expected.
Not a clue, sorry. No idea where I got that from now. Whilst trying to find out I've also noted that the Huizhou style isn't named after the city, so I've taken out that wikilink; by rights it should link to He Zhen but since he's mentioned in the same senetence I figure it's preferable to leave it unlinked.
  • founded by He Zhen: it appears He was a contemporary? Probably want to make that clear
He died when Hu was 22, but there's certainly an overlap in their lives, and adding "contemporary" make it clear that for Hu, this was a modern school. I've made the addition.
  • is balanced and carefully structured: could be considered NPOV. Perhaps "is considered balanced and carefully structured"?
Well, the opinion is that of a professor of art history who speicalises in Chinese art; I think it's fair to say her statements go beyond the subjective. My own phrasing is a bit biased, though; I've changed it to "Hu's calligraphy, although balanced and with a clear compositional structure, is somewhat more angular and rigid than the classical models he followed", which is a closer reflection of the original source.
  • It would be nice to have an image in this section. Perhaps even a comparison of a Hu seal to others of the Huizhou school to show the differences the text talks about?
I'll see what I can do...
  • Zhou Lianggong stated that Hu: again, it would be best to make clear that Zhou was a contemporary
Clarified who Zhou was.
  • Despite Hu's withdrawal from society after 1646, the studio continued to publish well into the Qing Dynasty, for the most part focussing on seal impression catalogues showcasing Hu's carving work.: this is uncited
That's from Wright; I've moved the ref to the end of that paragraph.
  • developing embossed printed designs: is this meant to imply he developed the technique, or merely produced examples?
Edited for clarity.
  • a technique known as dou ban yin shua : you produce the Chinese script elsewhere—any reason not to here?
I don't know the characters - they aren't in the source. Well, "ban" is 板 (block), but as for the rest, I've no clue.
I followed a Google "Did you mean ... ?" for 豆瓣印刷, but then got nothing but porn hits. I kept at it, though, and I think the characters are 饾板印刷—I do have to emphasize that I have no Chinese language ability, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Having said that, the "印刷" just means printing, and appears to be attached to taoban as well (套版印刷). You should eaither add a yinshua to taoban, or drop it for both. If it were me, I'd go with "douban printing" and "taoban printing". But again, I don't speak Chinese. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant - thank you! I've added the characters to the text based on the reading in the footnote at [15]. Yunshui  07:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • he was able to produce some of China's first printed publications in colour: it says "some"—does that mean someone beat him to it?
See Talk:Hu_Zhengyan#Earliest.
  • The volume used a form of multiple block printing called taoban : I'd probably move these to the previous paragraph. Also, were there other multiple-block printing techniques at the time other than taoban? Is it worth redlinking? And providing the script for it? If taoban was the only technique he used, I'd mention it in the previous section rather than here.
I've moved this up, in a way that makes clear that this was not the only prointing method availble. Again, no idea what the Chinese characters would be.
It appears to be 套版. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • which made use of his gong hua stamped embossing technique: I'd menion the name of the technique in the previous section, where his development of embossing is introduced.
I've done so, plus a found anew source to provide a brief definition.
  • Do you know of any images that clearly show the embossing?
I've not found any that clearly show the embossing in use; there's an image in the source I've added but it's small and very dim.
  • Any examples of the Imperial seal he created?
That would be nice, but I can't find anything that I can definitively state is the correct seal.
  • It's nice to have a gallery, but best not to get carried away. You probably want a couple of key examples in the body of the article, too.
Still thinking about his. I like the organisation of having everything in a gallery, but I'll have a look and see if there are any pictures which particularly illustrate certain elements of the text.
Okay, I've now added a painting which is a good example of the colour gradation in his printing, and also a double image comparing two prints of the same painting.
  • You should create a Hu Zhengyan category (and a Shizhuzhai shuhua pu subcategory?) at Commons and add a {{Commons category}} to the article.
Apologies for interjecting my replies into your comments, it seemed like it would be easier to follow that way. Thanks ever so much for such a thorough review. Yunshui  10:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually prefer replies to be interspersed like that, and I've never understood why certain editors object.
Somehow I didn't notice that you'd made edits to the article in response to the above comments. The article's prose seems fine to me now. I'll leave it up to you, but if I were the editor I'd (a) cut back on the number of images in the gallery; and (b) leave out most of the non-English in the lead (Shizhuzhai, Shizhuzhai Shuhuapu)—it's there in th ebody for those who want it (along with the Chinese script), and I think many will find it just distracting at the lead level. Not something I feel strongly enough to withhold the support I now bestow upon this article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Cmt: I don't really agree re the gallery images, but I would move one up to the biography section. At the moment the first 2 are seals, which leave Western readers cold. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I too like having a reasonably substantive gallery - I don't feel that ten images are excessive. @Johnbod: I have to disagree regarding the seals, though; speaking as a Western reader I find well-produced seal script absolutely captivating. It's a shame there are no images of Hu himself out there; I went with his personal seal as an infobox image since such seals seem to be the only graphical "representations" of the man that are available. I will have a look around and see if there's anything that might fit into the bio section, though.
I've also expanded the lead and the information on his printing somewhat, would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Yunshui  08:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You've added "He employed several members of his family in this enterprise." to the lead, but I don't see anything about that in the body (which means no source, either). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: Biography section, second paragraph: where he employed ten artisans including his two brothers Zhengxin (Wusuo) and Zhengxing (Zizhu) and his sons Qipu and Qiyi (Zhigua), sourced to Wright. Many thanks for the support vote, by the way! Yunshui  08:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm considering the image below for inclusion in the Biography section, per User:Johnbod's suggestion; any thoughts? Yunshui  11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
A model of the city of Nanjing at the time Hu lived there
That one doesn't do much for me, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Me neither, to be honest (otherwise I'd just have stuck it in the article) but I'm struggling to come up with a suitable free image that illustrates his biography. Any suggestions would be welcomed. Yunshui  08:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Cobblet has come up with a much better image (in the article now); what do you think? Yunshui  08:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Great stuff! Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Hu_Zhengyans_seal.JPG: should include licensing status of original work as well
  • File:Hu_Zhengyan_Seal2.PNG should use life+100. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Is there a specific template for including the licence of the original image? I don't know of one, and haven't been able to find anything appropriate. Or do I just need to add the {{PD-Art}} template (with appropriate parameters)? Thanks, Yunshui  07:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Second one is fixed. Yunshui  08:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is essentially a derivative work - the derivative is claimed to be under CC, but the work it's derived from is life+100. Here is one possible way to address that, though there are others. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks; I thought there might be some template for derivative works to display both licences. Both files now updated, much obliged for your review. Yunshui  12:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I would mention (or at least link) that Hu was an exponent of Chinese woodblock printing, not European style printing.
I've redirected the link in the lead to go directly to Color_printing#China - good idea.
  • His place of birth appears to be referenced to Wen Huilin's book, which is stated to be unreliable. The information should be described as dubious or referenced to a reliable source.
Good point; that info actually comes from Wright (cited at the end of the paragraph). I've added an extra reference after the sentence about his birthplace to make it clear what is being cited from which source.
  • Nothing on parents, wife, number of children. If this is unknown, you should say so. Some details are clearly available as you mention brothers and sons.
There's very little, at least in English. Once source makes a passing mention that his wife was called Wu (now added in the biography section) and Wright mentions his brothers and (very briefly) the two sons.
  • Presumably the Ten Bamboo Studio was in Nanjing, but you should say so.
Fair point; I've done so.
  • "his sons Qipu and Qiyi (Zhigua). You say his family name was Hu. What is the significance of Zhigua?
That's Hu Qiyi's courtesy name. I can't find a record of Qipu's, assuming he had one.
  • Is it known where he lived after he retired.
None of the sources say; the consensus is that he "retired from public life", but whether he remained at the Ten Bamboo Studio or left to live somewhere else is not made clear in any English source.
  • " producing personal seals for numerous contemporary dignitaries" I think the word "contemporary" is superfluous.
I agree, and have removed it.

Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Many thanks for taking the time to review. As with Curly Turkey's review above, I've interspersed my comments with your own; please let me know if you've prefer my reply to be reformatted. Yunshui  08:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. A first mrate article. You do not need to comment on interspersing your replies - I would say that is the usual and best way of doing it. Just one other point. I would have the first courtesy name as Zhengxin (courtesy name Wusuo) to explain the meaning of the names in brackets. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea; I will do so. Thank you very much for your review and support! Yunshui  09:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I'm pretty sure Yunshui's apologizing to cover his ass in case someone spazzes out because the talk page guidelines nonsensically prohibit interspersing comments in such a way. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah - so that explains the irritating failure of some nominators to explain their responses to comments! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cobblet[edit]

A much welcome article on one of the highlights of Chinese art.

  • I added a picture of his former residence in Xiuning to the Biography section.
Thank you so much, that's perfect!
  • What's the source for his birthplace being "the town of Xinan"? I'm guessing this might be referring to 新安郡 which was a former commandery straddling the border between Anhui and Zhejiang (and did not seem to contain Xiuning in its borders), and I didn't find anything suggesting it was still in existence during the Ming dynasty.
Honestly, I don't know where I got that from now. It doesn't seem to be in the source. I've removed the specific town, since the most the source says is that he hailed from Xiuning.
  • His courtesy name Yuecong (曰从) needs to be given clearly. We could also really use Chinese names of his family members (e.g. his elder brother was 胡正心, his sons were 胡其朴 and 胡其毅 (courtesy name 致果, Zhiguo not Zhigua).
Thank you again - locating copiable Chinese characters for these had stumped me, which is why they weren't in the text. If you can locate the characters for Zhengxing (Zizhu) and Wusuo (I know what they look like, but can't type them) I'd be very grateful. The additions above have now been made.
  • Gonghua should be 拱花, not 空花. Ditto for gongban (拱板 not 空板).
Looks like you're right - fixed.
  • The lead needs to explicitly mention the fact he pioneered new techniques in Chinese printmaking. Right now there's little sign of how important his role was in the development of the art form. We are speaking after all of "one of the world's masterpieces of color printing" [16], that showed "for the first time in Chinese art a systematic approach to the study of painting." [17]
Added an extra line to emphasise this.
  • Can we get a more extensive list of his publications?
I think so, I will work on that today.
  • I found an extensive article on Ten Bamboo studio in Chinese that sheds light on some important biographical details, such as Hu's background as a physician.
Excellent - but unfortunately I can't read (or, as we've established above, write) Chinese, and Google Translate is not particularly helpful (sample of translated text: "family background chopsticks book, not shoulder basket plow"). I'll try and tease out some useable information, but would you mind if I ran the edits past you first, to check that the source actually says what my interpretation of Google's gibberish thinks it does?

Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Many thanks for these extremely helpful suggestions and additions. Yunshui  07:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: I've expanded the Major works section to include some of his other major publications (outside the sphere of art and printing). However, I could really use a bit of help here; I'd like to add the Chinese characters for these books but really don't know where to begin. If you could lend a hand with the translation, it would be greatly appreciated.
On a related note, I really can't glean anything useful from the Zhuoke Arts website; in Google translate it's just nonsensical for the most part. Could I ask you the enormous favour of looking through it and suggesting any tidbits of information that would be appropriate for the article, so that I can work them in?
Much obliged, Yunshui  08:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: You, sir, are a marvel. One of the best things about making occasional forays into FA territory is that one meets some exemplorary helpful editors; this is proving to be no exception. Thank you very much indeed - if I may make one final imposition, can you offer a sensible translation of "牌統浮玉"? Yunshui  14:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is such a cool topic I can't help myself :) Fuyu (浮玉) means "abode of the immortals"; the term's being used metaphorically – think along the lines of Gradus ad Parnassum – and I don't know how one would translate it idiomatically. I'll work on adding biographical details from the Chinese article tonight or tomorrow. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: So perhaps: "Tile System (or Domino System) of the Abode of the Immortals"? Yunshui  13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's better to leave it untranslated if we can't find a source for a translation. Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice to furnish readers with a translation, I think - currently it's the only untranslated title in the article (and at the moment it looks as though 牌統浮玉 means "Chinese dominoes"; I'll fix that). Translations aren't considered original research, but I'd prefer to use yours to mine since you actually speak the language!
As far as I can tell - and I've looked pretty hard - there's no English translation of the book's title out there; if we do translate it, it'll have to be our own work. Yunshui  12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't speak Classical Chinese and I had to do some googling to find out what fuyu means (it's literally "floating jade"; "domino system floating jade" – hmm) and I couldn't find a good enough explanation for me to be absolutely sure this is its correct meaning. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
More comments from Cobblet[edit]
  • What's the source for the name "Ku Yueh-Tsung"? Yueh-Tsung is the Wade–Giles romanization of Yuecong but I'm not sure where "Ku" would've come from – is it just a typo? Also Hu's Chinese name should be in the infobox.
Sources is here - might be a typo in the original, I don't know. Romanisation of Chinese is a bit of a 'mare, as I'm sure you know! Added a native_name parameter to the infobox.
On further consideration, perhaps we ought to remove "Ku Yueh-Tsung". It looks to be an erroneous form of the Wade-Giles romanisation "Hu Yueh-Tsung", which is already covered in the text. I've not found any other examples, nor does there seem to be any precendent for rendering 胡 as "Ku" in any romanisation system. Any thoughts?
  • The age range in the infobox contradicts the text in the article, and it seems generally accepted he was at least 90 when he died (I've seen 91 in some Chinese sources). Perhaps the uncertainty in the dates as discussed by Wright should be briefly noted in the biography. (fixed myself)
  • Given that Digutang was definitely still publishing in the 1650s, 1619–1646 cannot be correct for the "years active" field of the infobox. I don't think we know with certainty when he began and ended his publishing career.
It seems implied in Wright and a couple of other sources that he gave up publishing after the death of Zhou Yousong (with the studio continuing under the direction of his brothers), but since no date is stated I'll take it out.
  • Noted the improvements to the lead, although I think we could still go further. I understand the WP:SUBJECTIVE concerns but when an artist's work receives as much strongly worded acclaim from experts as Hu's I think the lead should reflect this in some way. At least it should be pointed out that Chinese woodblock printing reached its highest standards in the late Ming and Hu's work exemplifies it.
I'll have a think about how best to word something around this.
Perhaps this source might be helpful – it notes colour printing as possibly Ming xylography's most important achievement, and also makes a favourable direct comparison between Hu Zhengyan's work and the Manual of the Mustard Seed Garden. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I note Wright says "by 1619", not "around 1619". The Chinese source I'll be working on conjectures the move to Nanjing happened around 1615-1616. (fixed myself)
Again, thanks.
  • After the most recently added publications the heading "Major works" no longer seems appropriate. Also you may want to continue providing dates for these works where they're available.
I've put in a subheading; will look into dates when I have a bit more time.
Dates now added for those I can be certain of.
  • The publication names in the Biography section use sentence-case capitalization but those in the rest of the article use title case. IIRC the MOS calls for the latter.
Been meaning to fix that for ages - now done.

The article could still use attention from a MOS guru (for instance right now the article consistently uses only traditional Chinese characters except for his (courtesy) name where I gave both; what's the policy on this for historical Chinese articles?) but it's looking pretty good to me now. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll do some scouring of the MOS and see what I can come up with. Thank you so much for your additions to the Bio section; it looks much better now. Yunshui  10:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: It looks fairly MOS compliant - now that Huizhou is (correctly!) wikilinked, the MOS indicates the removal of the Chinese text (done) but that was the only glaring error. It also requires a pinyin version with tonal marks in the initial {{zh}} template, which I've added. There doesn't seem to be any preference for simplified or traditional, though it's suggested that authors consider using simplified as well as traditional if there's a difference (which in the case of his full name, there isn't, I don't think). Yunshui  09:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You assume correctly. I think it's best we remove the "Ku Yueh-Tsung" spelling – I can't find evidence of any variety of Chinese pronouncing 胡 as Ku.
I just realized I didn't actually change his age at death as given in the infobox. It seems generally accepted that he was at least 90 years old when he died (Lü Liuliang recorded Hu's age as 90 at the time of his visit); maybe it's a better idea to just use the death-date template rather than the one that gives the age as well. Cobblet (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've taken out the "Ku Yueh-Tsung" spelling. The docs for the infobox and subtemplates recommend using {{death year and age}} in uncertain cases to give an approximate ages, so I reckon that the current infobox is okay (there isn't a {{death year}} template, and {{death-date}} requires day and month parameters). Either that or we should go with "unknown", but a couple of sources do try to pin down his year of death - I think what we have now is probably the best compromise. Yunshui  11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
How about {{BirthDeathAge}}? Looks like it can just take the year of death and not specify an age. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: Never seen that one before - but yep, it seems to work! Yunshui  07:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Adam Cuerden[edit]

Alright. Let's see. Given that the most important thing is his work, having the building be the largest image is strange at the least.

  • 100px wide is way too small for [[:File:Hu Zhengyan Seal Comp.jpg].
  • I'm not clear what the pair of images labelled "Two prints of the same painting, Bamboo in Snow..." is meant to show.

I think you get the idea. I'm happy to re-review, even help out if you need it, but this isn't quite good enough as yet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Gateway Protection Programme[edit]

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a refugee resettlement scheme operated by the British government since 2004. A longstanding good article, I unsuccessfully nominated it for FA status some five and a half years ago. After a long break from editing, I returned to Wikipedia recently and saw that the article was in need of updating. New source material had also been published in the meantime, and I have been able to use it to update and expand the article. The article is extremely stable (mainly because few other editors have bothered to edit it, leaving me as almost the sole author, which may be a problem - I don't know). I hope that it covers the topic in sufficient depth and is well-written enough to now be promoted. I stand ready to act to remedy any shortcomings in the article identified during this process. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dead links
  • FN17/18 are formatted as a report series, but they're actually conference presentations
  • Be consistent in when you include locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria, I'm looking into this now. Just a query about your FN17/18 point: I used Template:Cite conference for these, so I'm a bit confused by your comment. Could you clarify? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. The issue is distinguishing the conference details from the publication details. You will want to include the editors and ISBN for the proceedings, and I would suggest publisher as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. All of the issues you highlight should now be fixed, although I've posted a question here about why the conference paper citation parameters are appearing in a strange order in the reference list. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No reply there, but I think I've resolved this myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

An interesting article. A few comments

  • I made two edits, tweaking the text and removing two dup links
  • In your refs, web copies documents that exist in real life don't need retrieval dates, that's for web only pages
  • The title of the article is understood in headings, I'd suggest "Refugees resettled" instead of "Refugees resettled under the programme" and "evaluation" instead of "Programme evaluation"

I look forward to supporting soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimfbleak. I'll look to address those points shortly. Thanks for your own edits to the article, too. Do you have a suggestion for an alternative title for the first section heading, Programme details? I agree with the suggestion to remove the redundant "programme", but "Details" as a header doesn't quite work for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I wondered about that one, but I agree that "Details" isn't good. There's no point forcing the policy, so I'm happy for it to stand unless anyone else objects. In my own FAs I tend to write very short stubs to avoid redlinks. That's my preference, not policy, and you are under absolutely no obligation to do it, just floating the idea. It may not be worth it for you because most of my stubs are for plants, insects and parasites which, as species, are notable by definition, so one sentence and a ref is enough. That may not be the case with yours. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the other two headings and left the programme details one as it is. I think that I included the red links when I first started working on the article in the hope that they would inspire people to write articles on those topics. I might try to create some stubs at some point, but have a few other articles I want to focus on at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Eric Corbett talk; SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This article, part of our Scottish mythology series, tells of the centaur-like nuckelavee of Orkney, the most horrible of all Scottish demons with its immense head, lack of skin, and breath that could destroy crops. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Some queries.....

  • The late 19th century saw the onset of an interest in transcribing folklore, - dunno if "onset" is a good fit here (reminds me of "onset of symptoms" but then again as I am a doctor that might be job-related) - I'd maybe substitute for "kindling" or "birth" or some other more poetic synonym which escapes me....
  • NB: that sentence is a tad on the long side, so you might consider splitting it...
  • but to an extent "romanticised and systematised" certain elements - hmmm, be nice to use some unquoted non-paraphrased words...though none come to mind. If one could be found for "systematised" I reckon we could get away with leaving quotes off "romanticised.

The rest all looks fine - minor quibbles only..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through Cas Liber. Eric Corbett 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed "onset of an interest" to "upsurge of interest".
  • I've slightly shortened that sentence, but I don't think it's particularly difficult to read as it stands?
  • Changed to "romanticised and systematically altered", which I think makes it a bit clearer what "systematised" means anyway.
Eric Corbett 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
yeah - all good. It wasn't hugely long that sentence, just came across a tad so, so I didn't feel it was a deal-breaker in anyway, but I do think it's better slightly shorter. Anyway, all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Commenting on kelpie was a rather mixed experience, but I really appreciate someone is tackling these subjects, so here I am. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "which in turn seems to be related to the Icelandic nykur." I see that's what the source (which doesn't seem particularly authorative) says, but instead of being related to the specific Icelandic version of the word, it is more likely to be related to the general Norse term (as it would have arrived with Norsemen from Scandinavia rather than iceland). Nykur is the Icelandic word for Neck (water spirit).
  • I've removed it.
  • "Writer and folklorist Ernest Marwick considered it very similar to the Norwegian nøkk" Likewise, nøkk and nykur are the same thing, so a bit odd that they are discussed separately. Neck (water spirit) should probably be wikilinked already under etymology, when nykur is mentioned.
  • I've linked neck (water spirit) here because of the removal above.
  • "in the 16th-century Latin manuscripts of Jo Ben" If available, could occupation and nationality for this person be mentioned? Hard to figure out the context of his writings otherwise.
  • I've added a note as it's a bit of a complicated explanation to incorporate into the text.
  • "Dennison transcribed much of the information available about traditional tales told on Orkney" When?
  • I've included the dates of his publications as a note as that's the only indicator I can find ...
  • "An islander, Tammas, survived a confrontation with the beast and, after much cajoling from Dennison, reluctantly gave his description of the monster, the only known first-hand account." When?
  • Nothing is specified that I can find.
  • Equine should probably be linked at first occurrence, it is not certain most readers would know this term.
  • Done.
  • "after he inadvertently splashed it with water from the loch he was alongside" Likewise, most people may not know what a loch is.
  • Done.
  • "Originating in Northern folklore" Northern seems too generic, Northern what? Why not just say Nordic?
  • I've changed it to Norse as Nordic re-directs to that.
  • The word Satan is used in the intro, yet Devil is used in the article. Any reason for this inconsistency? Though it obviously refers to the same entity, the intro should not use different words than the article.
  • I've changed it to Devil.
  • "despite its being predominantly a sea-dweller." Is this correct? Or should be "despite it"?
  • I think "its" is correct.
  • Anything about its cultural significance today?
  • Not that I can find.
  • That's about it from me, should be ready to support once these are addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look at this, FunkMonk. I've tried to make a start on addressing your comments and will continue to go over them again tomorrow (UK time). Re: the (Sigurd Towrie) source - as I'm not sure if I'm supposed to include refs etc on the FAC template, I'll instead ask if you would please have a look at the bottom of this review where the reliability and my reasoning for it was discussed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice with the added context. FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, FunkMonk, much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Nothing from me, this is utterly flawless as I imagined it would be from these two fine nominators. CassiantoTalk 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Cassianto - very much appreciated by me and Eric. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Looks in very good shape, can't imagine there being a mass of material to write about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Note -- I think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kiyoweap[edit]

This article has numerous issues. Reviewers who are spotting no problems probably need to be frank about being a drive-by "general-purpose FA reviewer" rather than a "WP:Mythology participant level" reviewer, because they are obviously not putting in the due diligence effort of checking what is stated in the article versus what occurs in the cited sources.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Under Talk:Nuckelavee#Kelp I describe various issues relating to nuckelavee and seaweed-burning to make kelp (soda ash). One has to do with botanical identification. Another concerns conflicting information from differing sources (not mine, but exiting citations already in the article). I can't determine if this is a misread of one of the sources, or if the dissenting opinions need to be presented in fair proportion as per WP:Neutrality. But some solution is required.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up as if undiscussed on the talk page? The issue is the meaning of the word 'kelp' (not helped by the sources!), which makes more sense if used for the product and generic "seaweed" used for what they burnt. The problem is partly the source. In any case I highly doubt anyone of us is emotionally attached to kelp per se. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
My notice was perfectly legit. It was timed when issues were unresolved (after Eric had reverted my edit without explanation, but before editors "fixed" the issue). Only in the aftermath does this notice seem redundant.
If such notices wish to be avoided, I contend that the editors should be the ones to refrain from knee-jerk reverting my edit as "not an improvement", only to subsequently restore my content piecemeal signed under their own name.
Cas Liber marginalizes my input saying " I highly doubt anyone of us is emotionally attached to kelp", without bothering to google and read up on the material. As he is usually a stickler for such taxonomic detail, this comment is quite unbecoming.
In a nutshell, I am highlighting the fact that "kelp" in common parlance excludes Fucus spp. (or "wracks"), but various sources on 19th century kelp for glass-making say Fucus was (mainly) used, and also, in Orc. and Shet. folklore certain sea-horse spirits as sea trow and the tangie (akin/equatable to Nuckelavee) are known or opined to be covered by Fucus. (More precise discussion with citations I'll add at Talk:Nuckelavee#Kelp) --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, show us the sources on that page then. Nothing you've shown me excludes Fucus so please show me one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

2. That "Troicis" or "Trowis" in Jo Ben's manuscript is reference to a (sea) trow seems backable by multiple sources (paper, book, thesis), so NPOV treatment would be to move the bulk of this material to trow (folklore).

3. The article might then say "One view is that the trow mentioned in Jo Ben's medieval ms. was a nuckelavee," but this seems to be the webauthor's opinion at, and its info can't be considered WP:RS if not backable by other published sources. I already pointed out in Talk:Stoor worm#Stoorworm etymology dispute feedback that the Storðar-gandr etymology given by is questionable.

4. The citation given for Jo Ben is "Bruford 1997 p.117", but there is nothing on that page that matches, so there must have been some other piece of information intended to be elicited from this essay, from some other page(??). I would have to guess that it has something to do with Orkney having more Celtic heritage and not so nearly purely Norse.

That citation isn't needed anyway, so I've removed it. Eric Corbett 12:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

5. The reason I guess this (#4.↑) is that the lede claim of "composite of a water horse from Celtic mythology and Nokk is very tenuously sourced: under #Origins the authority is once again the heavily used site. The hyperlink should probably be corrected to a different page "nokk.htm" entitled "The Nuggle", and there is a marginal musing there, quote: ".. has led me to wonder whether the dread Nuckelavee was a... amalgamation of ..pre-Norse Celtic water-horse and [Norse monster]", but this seems tantamount to a blog source.

Your guesswork has no place here. Eric Corbett 13:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

6. "Dennison.. romanticized" is an assessment in the context of the Finfolk, citing Jennings's article entitled the "The Finnfolk". It is hardly kosher practice to transfer an opinion in the context of other creatures/beings to this one, and it should be removed from here and placed in Finfolk.

I don't agree. We're making a general point about Dennison's approach to collecting these stories. Eric Corbett 12:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

7. "The late 19th century saw an upsurge of interest.." (under #Etymology) is a cookie-cutter reuse of a statement found in Eric's kelpie article (#Folk belief). This is sourced to Monaghan's Celtic Mythology book. In kelpie, there was at least a Celtic (Scottish Gaelic) derivation theory, though a very much disputed one, so there was some reason for sourcing this. But for nuckelavee, I don't see any Gaelic etymological derivation given or forthcoming, so the reuse of this sentence is inappropriate. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's appropriate because we're still talking about the upsurge of interest in collecting Scottish folklore. Eric Corbett 12:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a spot-check is in order then, I (and perhaps other reviewers) do not necessarily cross-check with the sources when reviewing an article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The issue seems to centre around kelp. I highly doubt anyone has an emotional interest in the specifics of which seaweed is used, so we can have a look on the talk page and discuss. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks, Nikkimaria, for taking a look at this. FunkMonk did query it above and if I may point to the same link of a GA review where the reliability and my reasoning for it was discussed at the bottom. That also further links to a number of articles that already use it, some of which are included as GAs and Featured Lists within the Featured topic Islands of Scotland. I will ping Ben MacDui, a respected and very experienced editor within the Scottish Islands topic, but unfortunately he is now in semi-retirement; he has, however, commented on the use of this reference previously, as can be seen by following the first link I gave. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This sort of issue has been a recurring one in my now dwindling attempts to improve articles about the island fringes of Scotland. How should we treat evidently intelligent and knowledgable local sources that lack academic credentials - especially if there are few or none that have the latter? I don't believe it's a matter of black and white. Having spent time in academia myself I think it's fair to say that there are no few opinionated and ill-informed individuals in that world who seem to think that as they have a PhD in a vaguely-related subject this means that their opinions should be treated as gospel, whether it is properly evidenced or not. On the other hand we clearly should not be quoting couthy local yokels as authorities just because there is nothing better. Here then is my opinion in regard to Orkneyjar. It may not be perfect but I don't recall ever coming across information on it that was demonstrably false or misleading. I think it's fair to say that no Wikipedian has, to date, written more about the geography and history of Orkney than myself, and Mr Towrie knows ten times what I know. I therefore use this source with confidence whenever the occasion arises (and of course ideally there will be a second ref to back it up, usually in a book that no other Wikipedian will have access to). Whether or not this also applies to Towrie's views on the myhology of Orkney I cannot be as certain and I leave that for others to judge, but generally speaking I consider him a trusted source - and no I have never met him or had any dealings with him in person. Happy editing to you all. Ben MacDui 08:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The University of the Highlands and Islands Archaeology Institute, "a hub for world class research, teaching, and professional consultancy" has a twitter account - @UHIArchaeology. I see that today they state that "Ness of Brodgar dig diary entries will be posted daily at Orkneyjar..." Ben MacDui 07:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Gonzalo[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been working on this article on-and-off since the storm's formation last October, and after a recent final push to tie up loose ends and flesh out my research, I think it's among the finest tropical cyclone articles on the site. I hope you'll agree. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as the GA reviewer. I was very impressed with the prose while I was reviewing it, and it looks even better now with JC's finishing touches. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Very impressive, I only suggest at infobox, "Up to $400 million", remove "Up to".--Jarodalien (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


  • two official hurricane landfalls – is "official" needed? Are there sucha thing as an unofficial hurricane landfall?
  • Gonzalo tracked northwestward as it intensified into a Category 4 major hurricane, the first in the Atlantic since Ophelia in 2011, by October 15. – having "by October 15" (referring to 2014) following "2011" is a bit jarring. It might be better in the middle of the sentence after "hurricane", but is it even needed at all? The timeframe is already set by "formed from a tropical wave on October 12" and "on October 16, Gonzalo peaked".
  • "Barely a road" – quotations in the lead should have inline citations per MOS:LEADCITE (or rephrase into your own words)
  • Guadeloupe – the first mention (in Preparations) should be linked rather than the second mention (in Impact and aftermath)
  • The hurricane generated hurricane-force winds – repetition of "hurricane" should be avoided
  • Naturally, elevated weather stations observed the highest winds – is "Naturally" needed here, does it add anything?
  • but the strong winds likely compromised the accuracy of the rain gauge – should probably be more explicit that the measurement is likely an underestimate, rather than just inaccurate
  • Currencies should be used consistently – some figures are marked as US$, others just use $ without specifying which dollar
    • Specifically, the article uses US$ when referring to the Caribbean, but when referring to Bermuda does not specify
  • 0.25 mi (0.40 km) – 0.25 mi probably reads better as a quarter of a mile, and metres is a better unit to convert into for amounts under one kilometre
  • ''Lowest pressure 940 mbar (hPa); 27.76 inHg – appears in the infobox, but is not in the article (and therefore unreferenced)

- Evad37 [talk] 12:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Should all be taken care of I think. Thanks for the review. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've struck the resolved issues, just a couple left now - Evad37 [talk] 00:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe I've addressed the remaining issues here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Support on prose now - Evad37 [talk] 06:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support – Solid work all around JC. I've made some copyedits here and there so please double check to make sure everything is still in line. I also removed some redundant referencing that was covered by the TCR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Note -- image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

JC's Girls[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an American evangelical organization of Christian women who evangelize to female workers in the sex industry. The article has received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and has undergone a successful good article nomination. Neelix (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • links are returning errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have repaired the link rot; all of the links are working now. Neelix (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This is certainly an unusual organisation - nice work in developing the article on it.

I have the following specific comments:

  • "When JC's Girls was first founded, pornographic film director James DiGiorgio took glamour photographs of three JC's Girls members for the organization's original website without asking for payment. DiGiorgio was not a Christian, but said that he was helping JC's Girls because the sex industry is "always trying to preach freedom of speech [so] anyone in this industry who has a problem with [JC's Girls'] message is a fucking hypocrite." - is this important enough to be in the lead?
  • "JC's Girls is less focused on seeking conversions than on communicating the message to women in the sex industry that Christians exist who aren't judging them and are willing to accept them." - this repeats what's in the previous para (but is a good summary - you might want to move the material around and trim a bit)
  • "Within a year of founding JC's Girls, Veitch had lost 25 pounds and become more physically fit to show that the organization's message is not motivated by jealousy" - this is a bit confusing, and is it relevant?
    • Comment from the GA Reviewer: This point is notable and interesting; Veitch was preemptively addressing a possible future criticism of her organization, and rightfully so. As the wording is apparently confusing, it could be made clearer, perhaps by moving Veitch's motivation closer to the beginning of the sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Theresa Scher, a former stripper and call girl, was looking for a way out of the sex industry" - if she was a " former stripper and call girl", why did she still need a way out of the industry?
  • "These guidelines were established because some women who had quickly gone from working in the sex industry to evangelizing with JC's Girls soon left the organization and returned to the sex industry" - whoa - these people try to exclude women who might not permanently transition out of the sex industry after a fairly short intervention which doesn't include any support to improve their skills, financial resources or any health and drug issues? Talk about self defeating. The wording around this seems unduly positive.
  • From a quick Google Scholar search, this journal article appears to include some coverage of this organisation.

I also have the following general comments:

  • The article presents this organisation as essentially operating in a vacuum aside from its interactions with various churches. Does it work with other religious or secular organisations to provide holistic support to the women who approach it for assistance? If not, why not? (this goes to my second-to-last point above: there's reams of evidence that interventions like this need to be multifaceted to be effective).
  • The article also presents the organisation as being novel when, as I understand it, it's not. There are lots of support organisations which are based around taking a generally non-judgemental approach, not to mention social workers and welfare services which provide assistance to women in the sex industry.
  • Have their been responses to this organisation from feminist commentators and organisations, social workers, or sex worker organisations? Some aspects of it seem likely to attract criticism (the glamour photos and use of sex appeal to preach to men, the underlying implicit assumption that the women in the sex industry need saving through religion, what appears to be a fairly amateur and ad-hoc approach to providing assistance to vulnerable women, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment from the GA Reviewer: All three good points; if the sources exist it could very well be true that this article needs to be broader in scope in order to qualify as a Featured article. Prhartcom (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, Nick-D! I believe that I have addressed most of your concerns. I have replaced the information about DiGiorgio in the lead with the quotation by Barone. I have restructured and trimmed the "Ideology" section to avoid repetition and to improve flow. I removed the word "former" from the sentence introducing Scher. I have added the Liturgy source you indicated; thank you for finding it! I think that the statement about Veitch losing weight and becoming more physically fit is relevant to the article, so I have combined it with the quotation in a way that I hope makes it less confusing.
I'm not sure what to make of the second-last of your specific comments. The goal of JC's Girls is to communicate to sex workers that there are Christians who are willing to accept them; their goal is not to get women out of the sex industry, nor is it to turn sex workers into evangelists, and official evangelism is the only activity that JC's Girls excludes people from on the basis of their likelihood to return to the sex industry. The article makes clear that JC's Girls is very willing to include sex workers at their churches even if the women never leave the sex industry at all. Is there a way that you feel this can be made clearer in the article? I hope this explanation addresses the first of your general comments as well. As far as I know the only organizations with which JC's Girls has collaborated are Hookers for Jesus and the churches mentioned in the article.
This change in the organisation's rules looks like a change towards a quite different goal for the organisation - it can't be non-judgemental if its setting conditions for the women its working with to behave in a certain way (what message does this send to women who want to preach but are excluded?). This isn't really covered, and the wording is very positive. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps your definition of judgement doesn't match JC's Girls' definition. Either way, there don't seem to be any sources that make the claim that you are making. Could you give an example of the kind of positive-to-neutral wording you would like to see? Neelix (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This goes to the problem of a lack of unrelated perspectives I've noted below. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
With respect to your second general comment, I think the novelty of this organization lies in its humble ambitions; it simply seeks to connect sex workers with churches that will love them. The organization does not attempt to get the women to leave the sex industry, which is, as far as I know, a novel idea among Christian organizations involved with the sex industry. As for your third general comment, I have added all of the sources I have been able to find that relate in any way to JC's Girls, and I would be glad to add any more that you know of. I agree that the organization seems like one that would be likely to attract criticism, although I have searched through multiple journal databases as well as Google, and I have not found any more criticism than is already present in the article.
But lots of other organisations have similar ambitions, and this organisation presumably mirrored itself on them (consciously or unconsciously). Not many modern non-government social worker/counsellor type organisations try to force changes to people's behaviour, and this organisation fits into that model. I guess this and my comment on the criticism raises the issue of whether there are sufficient sources to support a FA-level article? This is certainly a fine article which makes good use of the sources which you've found, but it's unfortunately rather unreflective at present. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I have been able to ascertain, this article already makes use of all of the existing reliable secondary sources that discuss JC's Girls. In what sense to you feel that the article is unreflective? Do you see this point as being an actionable item? Neelix (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a barrier to FA status to be honest. The article is largely written from the perspective of this organisation, with most of the other perspectives being from similar or also religious organisations or commentators. I think that is problematic as it means that the subject isn't firmly placed in context or critically assessed. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I find your assertion surprising. Of the 26 sources used in this article, 16 come from secular media with only 10 coming from religious media; most of the sources used in this article are from secular media, including five of the six sources that are most-cited in this article. More than three quarters of the individual citations in this article draw from the 16 secular sources. The bulk of the commentary on the organization comes from secular media, as does at least half of the critical assessment in the "Reception" section, which is a standard-sized section for this length of an article. Might you be willing to revisit your assessment of the sources? Neelix (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that all of the sources are, unfortunately, fairly lightweight profiles of this organisation and its organisers/leaders which appear to be written by generalist journalists. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope my alterations of the article and my responses here have addressed your concerns. If they have not, please let me know, and I would be glad to engage with them further. Thank you again for your comments. Neelix (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with Cliftonian's comments below: the article has improved further during this FA from a strong base and I suspect that it's the best thing that anyone has ever written about this group, but unfortunately it lacks the kinds of details on the group's outcomes and ideology which are needed for FA standard IMO. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cliftonian[edit]

  • I had a look on JSTOR to see if I could find some more sources to back this up. Turned up nothing (though perhaps it may be good if someone else had a look as well, as I am not very familiar with the search interface there).


  • We say "these women have been spiritually abused by Christians trying to frighten them out of the sex industry with warnings of damnation". This is stated as if it is fact but it is actually someone's opinion
  • "JC's Girls emphasizes that God loves these women" ditto
  • "does not try to persuade them to leave the sex industry; the organization recognizes that is often not financially viable for these women to immediately leave the industry" repetitive, usage of "industry" at end of each clause
  • "non-judgmental churches" who decides which churches are "non-judgmental"?
  • "Its volunteers tend to dress attractively" who decides what's "attractive" dress?
  • "does not mean becoming less attractive" perhaps "does not mean repressing themselves" or similar


  • "By 2005, Veitch was working as a hairdresser" Where? California?
  • Why "Matthew's House"? A reference to the evangelist of that name? Why not Mark, Luke or John?
  • Why have the past chapters of the organisation fallen away? Do any of the sources give any indication?
Unfortunately, they don't; I have no idea why the other chapters no longer exist. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "On Good Friday in March 2005, Veitch, Albee and six other women went to a strip club" Where? Riverside, CA?
  • Presumably the choice of Good Friday was deliberate? Why Good Friday specifically (as opposed to Maundy Thursday, Easter Sunday etc)?
Unfortunately, the sources are silent on this point. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Albee would later say that talking with women at the strip club changed her life" On this occasion specifically, or in general? (we make reference to more activities along these lines)
  • "Within six months of its founding, the organization's members had persuaded several strippers to start attending a church" out of how many evangelised (roughly)?
The sources don't seem to say. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "and were only once asked to stop" by whom? what was the ministry's reaction?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "By December 2005, Veitch, Albee, and teacher Tanya Huerter had become the organization's leaders" how? were they elected leaders or what?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Huerter, who also had no experience with the sex industry, said, "I have a heart for these girls ..." when did she say this?
  • "approximately 90 churches responded with interest" according to whom did about 90 respond with interest? out of how many contacted? how many actually helped?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "additional media coverage from other newspapers, television programs, and radio stations" in Britain, or elsewhere?
  • "She said that working with JC's Girls helped keep her mind off of her husband's brain cancer" when did she say this? is it really relevant enough to merit keeping in the article?
  • "Veitch eventually moved to Las Vegas" when? why?
  • Were they as successful at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in years after 2006? Why/Why not?
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Based on Veitch's work with Celebrate Community Church, JC's Girls started a program called "One Church for One Girl", which encourages churches to help women to leave the sex industry once the women have expressed an interest in doing so." This seems to be a repetition of something already stated in the ideology section.
  • "In July 2011, Veitch resigned from JC's Girls so she could spend more time with her family." What happened between 2008 and 2011? seems to be a bit of a gap here.
Ditto. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "an overwhelming passion to reach out to these precious women in love and without condemnation." quote needs in-line citation
  • "She had been sexually abused when she was a child" perhaps "She has described being sexually abused as a child" for something this evocative and contentious; could be a BLP issue (unless there was a trial and conviction here)
  • "Twice each month, members of the San Diego chapter of JC's Girls visit strip clubs." This is sourced to an article from four years ago. Do we have evidence that they still do this?
  • "a prayer team prays for them" bit repetitive. perhaps "other members pray for them" or similar
  • "while they are out" wording makes it sound like all the church's members live together in some kind of compound
  • Prejean does not have a background in sex work, correct? Perhaps this should be made clear as some readers may get the wrong end of the stick.
I have no reason to believe that Prejean has a background in sex work, but the sources don't explicitly say that she doesn't. I have attempted to reword so that the implication is less likely to be made without making an explicit statement against. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why did they give "lip gloss, necklaces, and lotions" to the strippers they were trying to evangelise? Seems to me an odd use of the organisation's money.
  • We make reference to a "peace treaty" in Warsaw, OH. Did the opposing parties actually sit down, write up a document and sign it? Or did they just agree not to fight each other anymore?
As far as I know, it's the latter. The sources use the word "accord" rather than "treaty", so I have switched to that. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why did the aforementioned "peace treaty" break down? The wording seems to imply the church members broke the truce by going back to picketing. Is this the case? Were these pickets organised by the church's leadership or by church members independently?
  • "several of the strippers JC's Girls members had spoken with in San Diego had begun attending a Bible study hosted by the organization and the chapter had helped one stripper become a Christian" at what stage does the organisation consider the strippers to have "become Christians"? Confession of faith, baptism, or what?
  • "That July, Veitch left the organization" This is repeated from further up. I would recommend removing the earlier mention and moving the information here so it is all together.
  • "Sher gave up her co-leadership of the organization to focus on her family" when?
  • "The woman must consistently attend a Bible study for four months" why is Bible study linked here and not at the first mention?
  • they must "read Francine Rivers' book Redeeming Love"? Why? It seems very strange to me that a Christian organisation would require its members to read anything non-scriptural. Encourage, perhaps, but not require. As Nick says above, this seems to me to go very much against its previous stated goal of not judging the women.
I don't think there is any reason for us to debate this point; it is sufficient to say that there are no sources that comment on whether or not this policy is judgmental. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Brown left JC's Girls in April 2014 and Laura Bonde took over leadership of the organization" Why did Brown leave? Who's Laura Bonde? What happened between 2011 and 2014? Are we to understand that JC's Girls was not successful during this time?
I think we are to understand that news agencies were no longer interested in covering the activities of JC's Girls during this time, not that the organization hasn't been successful. The majority of the sources are news sources, and an organization is not considered newsworthy if it is simply doing the same thing it did last year, whether it continues to be successful or not. The other questions you ask here are not answered by the sources. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would put the "Original website" section as a third-level section between the Riverside and Las Vegas sections. Seems more logical to me chronologically.
  • How many hits does the website get today? Are they on other social media—facebook etc?
I have added a link to their official Facebook page. The current hits are difficult to determine. Their current website is simply an extension of the Rock Church website, and Alexa doesn't distinguish between the Rock Church hits and the JC's Girls hits. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I see three official websites listed under the external links header, but no explanation in the body as to why there are different websites.
I don't have any sources to explain the different websites. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why did James DiGiorgio help them? Just because he was Veitch's friend? Presumably they knew each other from when she was in porn?


  • "When JC's Girls first started receiving funds from Sandals Church" it may be worthwhile to say again what year this was
  • "some of the church's members were displeased that their tithes and offerings were going towards lap dances" but the activists were not actually receiving the dances—the issue is that the money was still going to the strip clubs, yes?
  • "Brown said that funding the activities of JC's Girls was worthwhile" when?
  • The image of Heinlein doesn't seem relevant enough to me to include.
  • "At the end of 2005, Veitch said that she had expected that someone would have shouted at JC's Girls members or ejected them from a strip club at some point, but no one had." dubious notability
  • Is it really notable that a photograph of the volunteers at the 2006 expo was in a book in 2007?
I think it is worth retaining this statement. It is an interesting point that an image of JC's Girls was featured in an otherwise pornographic book, especially one that was significant enough to spawn a film. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pat Sherman of Pacific San Diego Magazine said that the members of the San Diego chapter of JC's Girls "have the looks to land jobs working the pole." Doesn't seem notable to me
  • Documentary filmmaker Bill Daly said that JC's Girls are like Charlie's Angels, but in real life. He said that members of the organization are "fighting false glamour with real spiritual beauty." The second part of this passage is good. The first part not so much; I would trim.
  • "In his book Evangelicals and the Arts in Fiction, John Weaver writes" when? who is John Weaver? What evidence or reasoning did Heinlein provide for his prediction that evangelical Christians would undergo a "sexual revolution"?
  • "A journalist for The Observer compared JC's Girls to" when? The assertion "both of 'these ministries are in some way reforming the church as well as their would-be followers'" seems to me somewhat dubious considering the statement is from 9 years ago and JC's Girls seems to be well past its heyday.

This is a good piece of work with the resources available but I agree with Nick's assertion above that the article seems unreflective and uncritical, and that this is a problem where FA status is concerned. Very little context is given here. I understand this is largely down to the lack of sources but unfortunately where reliable sources are lacking our treatment of the subject can only ever go so far. I'm sorry not to be more supportive and I hope the notes above help the article to develop. If there is more I can do to help please let me know and I'll do my best to help. Cheers and well done for all your work on this so far. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You do very thorough reviews, John! Thank you very much. I have attempted to address all of your points above. Anything I have not explicitly responded to, I believe I have addressed by altering the article according to your suggestion. Please let me know if I am wrong on either of these points. You ask a lot of questions for which there don't seem to be any answers in the sources. I did find one source that answers a few of your questions: a documentary film that I have added to the bibliography. I have always held that any article that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be eligible for featured status if it employs all the existing sources, but I understand that not all Wikipedians agree on this matter, and I respect your position. Whether or not you ultimately decide to support this FAC, I would like to address all of your actionable concerns to the best of my abilities. Thank you again for the review and your thoughts. Neelix (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The article has improved since the last time I looked at it and is a solid GA but I'm afraid for FA there would need to be more commentary on the group's actions, how its ideology matches up to scripture, Christian doctrine etc (for example their liberal attitude regarding modesty and clothing seems to me to contradict 1 Peter 3, but I suppose they would say that's me being judgmental, and maybe they're right). It's a shame because this is an interesting organisation it would be good to have more information on. In addition to the unresolved queries above I would be interested to know, for example, if any of the members had ever been observant Christians before or if all of them were becoming Christians for the first time. I'm not sure if I asked before how Veitch herself became a Christian—how exactly did she come up with this ideology for the organisation? Indeed was it Veitch who came up with this ideology, or was it a collaboration with others? How has it evolved over time? Is it still the same now as when the group started? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your continued engagement with the article, John; the citation work you did was particularly helpful. Apart from the criticism of the glamour photographs on the original website, I haven't managed to find any sources that discuss Christian responses to JC's Girls' clothing choices. In Day's documentary, Brown states that the #1 complaint that he gets about JC's Girls is about how Veitch looks, although no scriptural or doctrinal justification is provided for these complaints - would it help for this quotation by Brown to be included in the article? I did manage to find one reference to scripture in opposition to the fact that JC's Girls is run by women, and I have added this information to the end of the first paragraph in the "Reception" section. My understanding is that Veitch and Brown worked out the ideology of the organization together; are there particulars on this point that you would be interested to know? The documentary does go into some detail on the origins of the organization, although I didn't find anything else I thought sufficiently important to add to the article. Veitch became a Christian initially out of fear regarding the Year 2000 problem; I have added this information to the article. Do you have any other recommendations about how to improve the article? Neelix (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This quotation by Brown would be good. If the people complaining don't provide any scriptural support for this it just shows how little they know their Bible (in my judgmental opinion)—critics could quote 1 Peter 3 as I said above, or the similar 1 Timothy 2, which I see you have added. Did JC's Girls counter with scriptural passages advocating a more egalitarian attitude and/or a more prominent role for women (eg Galatians 3:28, parts in Acts and Romans that I recall mention prominent women among the early Christians)?
Regarding the wording that Veitch "converted to Christianity"—what was she converting from? Wasn't she nominally Christian already (as opposed to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist)? If she became born-again because she thought the end of days and the final judgement were coming in 2000, presumably she had left the sex industry by the end of 1999? How did the nature of her faith change when the world didn't end at the millennium? —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I had presumed until now that all of the women in the infobox image were from JC's Girls, but having opened the description up I see only the three comparatively covered-up brunettes behind the booth are JC's Girls and the scantily-clad blonde at the front is an unidentified "model". This seems to me to imply that the latter is not part of the organisation. I'd recommend clarifying this, and if the blonde is not part of JC's Girls either using a different image or cropping her out—readers may get a rather misleading image of just how far the organisation goes with its openness regarding dress. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I have found the golden source! There is a Christianity Today article in which Veitch says that Christians often criticize JC's Girls for dressing like sex workers, and I have added this information to the article. I have also added a few other sources that I came across as I was scraping the bottom of the Google barrel that provide a bit more context. I have also added the quotation from Brown. Do these provide the kind of critical assessment that you are looking for? I think it reasonable to assume that Veitch was not practicing any other religions before becoming a Christian. Do you feel that the word "converting" is inappropriate as a result? I have added more information from the Los Angeles Times article to clarify that Veitch left the sex industry before the end of 1999. I haven't managed to find any sources that suggest that the world not ending had any particular effect on Veitch; she simply continued to attend church. I have cropped the image in the infobox as you recommend; I can understand the potential confusion, now that you mention it. Neelix (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that "converting" is not the right word for this context; it seems to me to imply that she was actually actively something else before, but it seems to me that she was previously irreligious. I'd prefer the simpler "became a Christian" with variants depending on tense or something like that (I think the noun form "conversion" is okay). The new information is an improvement (though I'm not sure I understand the logic of the "when in Vegas" comment). A thought I have had from looking through the sources is that we seem to be rather unfair on Reverend Ray Turner of the Temple Missionary Baptist Church. We have him sound like a patriarchal fuddy-duddy who of course thinks the Jesus girls are terrible and misguided just because. While he does criticise JC's Girls in the source, we don't clarify that he's referring to scripture (Matthew 6, God and Mammon), and we don't mention that he also said he "commend[s] her for her zeal and desire to reach the lost for Christ." We also don't mention where his "Temple Missionary Baptist Church" is. The name of the church by itself isn't particularly helpful; this could be anywhere. It would be clearer and more helpful to refer to a "Baptist minister from San Bernardino, California" or something like that.
  • "In its first year, JC's Girls was criticized for asking DiGiorgio to take glamour photographs" by whom? Also, we just say they "asked him" to do it, not that he actually did it.
  • Why don't we mention the "If you are a CHRISTIAN ... See us in ACTION" quote from the website?
  • A lot is made of Veitch's "Do we ask gluttons to stop eating too much before they come to church?" comment in response to the Rev Ray Turner's criticism. However the source does not say this was specifically in response to Turner.
  • When was the Raëlian response to JC's Girls formed/operational?
  • Sher or Scher?
  • Do we really need the picture of DiGiorgio here? I mean, is it really relevant to show what he looks like? (showing what the JC's Girls look like is relevant as it is a key part of what makes them distinctive). It seems to me like this image is just here to highlight the "fucking hypocrite" quote already in the prose.
  • We refer to attempts to help those seeking to overcome pornography addiction, but don't actually explain what these entail.
Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from GA Reviewer of this article: I had not noticed the blonde woman many not be affiliated with the organization; that's a good observation. Regarding the cropping of her, my personal thought is: "Darn!" Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You can still see her here, Prhartcom. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha, much obliged, Cliftonian. I believe I could have located the "View history" tab, though. The article is looking good, gentlemen, I remain supportive of this article (even if the quality did undeniably drop ever so slightly with this edit). Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Your comments are certainly helpful, John. I have gone through another series of edits to the article, and I believe that I have addressed all of your most recently mentioned concerns except one: the explanation of how JC's Girls attempts to help people in overcoming pornography addiction. The only thing I have been able to find out through the sources on this point is already in the article: namely, that they have distributed a DVD containing a sermon by Brown on the subject. Do you have any other concerns that I might address? Neelix (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If I think of anything more I'll let you know. Thank you David for taking all of my comments in your stride and handling them with alacrity and and general good humour. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sitush[edit]

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous Christian evangelising. Most of the content seems to revolve around smarmy media interviews etc that, while nominally independent, are clearly extremely reliant for their facts on the very same "missionaries" who are the subject of the article. It quite possibly shouldn't even be GA because far too much of it is very closely associated with the organisation. Just as one very trivial example, the 40,000 hits figure for the website is not something that can be derived independently.

I've no idea how it could be made more neutral, bearing in mind some of the comments above re: searching JSTOR etc, but we don't need and shouldn't have proselytisation here. It reads like someone's hobby-horse. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you apologized for that statement. You are welcome to your opinion of course. This article meets the general notability guideline spelled out in Wikipedia:Notability, has the proper citations as named in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, meets every one of the Wikipedia:Good articles criteria and is clearly showing every sign of meeting the Featured Article Criteria. It is written by a scholar who has a good reputation here on Wikipedia. It is bound to attract the ire of some, but that is to be expected. If you wish to respond to my reply you are very welcome, either here or on my Talk page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must disagree with your assertion that the article is "showing every sign of meeting the Featured Article Criteria", Prhartcom; only Nick and I have given full reviews so far and neither of us is supporting as things stand. Both Nick and I have already above expressed views similar to those expressed by Sitush regarding the lack of reference material and the nature of that we have, the lack of serious critical commentary regarding its actions, ideology and results, the need for more proper perspective than what reliable sources seem to be able to provide, etc. I agree with Nick's comment above that this is probably the best outline anyone has ever drawn up regarding this organisation, but this frankly says about as much about the lack of supporting coverage as it does about the work Neelix has put into it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fine; I remember noticing the reliable sources were good but not great during the GA review and decided that Neelix did the best he could, so I agree with your assessment of this situation, Cliftonian. I notice that he has found more helpful sources, so I will continue to hope for the best for Neelix's sake.
As for Sitush's comment above, that is an overly sensitive, obviously biased statement. It reminds me of the first GA reviewer, who loved the article but felt disinclined to pass it solely because his wife was uncomfortable with the article's images. As editors we must not let our personal feelings get in the way of our quality assessment of articles. We only judge an article by the written criteria. To use myself as an example, during my review of this article I felt a duty to put aside any personal feelings I may have about religion. As I set about checking to see if the article met the necessary criteria, I realized the article's topic is interesting and unusual. It is worth being seen and read by others. Prhartcom (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Sitush's comment was strongly worded, but I really do understand his concerns regarding the sourcing. I'd like to clarify that I always do my utmost to put my personal feelings aside and look at things neutrally, not just when reviewing but also when writing and in my day-to-day real life. The comments I have given here are no exception. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

I realise I have come to this late and my comments will most likely not be as extensive as the others, but I'll read through the whole article and will bring up any prose concerns I can find. JAGUAR  15:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • "The group does not focus upon conversion but on communicating its message that Christians exist" - I would put an adverb in her to make it clearer: The group does not focus upon conversion but rather on communicating its message that Christians exist
  • "In January 2006, JC's Girls went to Las Vegas to operate a booth at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo that received much traffic and news coverage" - what about any views/opinions from media coverage? If you want to keep the lead compact and summarised then don't worry about this
  • "JC's Girls is less focused on seeking conversions than on communicating the message to women in the sex industry that Christians exist who are willing to accept them without judging them" - I think this sentence is a run-on, is the part where it says "that Christians exist who are willing to accept them without judging them" the message they're trying to communicate? Or is it two different things?
  • "The organization also diversified to support people with pornography addiction" - might sound silly but by 'people' is it referring to men too? My understanding is that this is a organisation for women?
  • "Its volunteers often wear eyelash extensions, stiletto heels, skinny jeans, and skin-tight t-shirts and backcomb their hair" - too many conjunctions in this sentence. May sound better as Its volunteers often style themselves with backcombed hair, eyelash extensions, stiletto heels, skinny jeans, and skin-tight t-shirts?
  • "...public discussion about the Year 2000 problem and the end of the world caused her to think that she might experience divine judgment for her lifestyle, so she became a Christian, married her boyfriend Jon, started and completed a course in cosmetology, left the sex industry, and became a hairdresser all by September 1999" - this is all a very long sentence and would flow better if it were split in half. Also, the typo "judgement" needs to be corrected. I'd recommend splitting it in half where I highlighted the comma so it reads: for her lifestyle. She then became a Christian, married her boyfriend Jon...
  • "In the past, JC's Girls chapters have been based in" - sounds quite ambiguous, can it be more accurate? This organisation is only ten years old!
  • "One of these women was fired from a strip club because she started attending Sandals Church, but she continued attending the church" - this makes no sense, did she continue attending Sandals Church when she got fired?
  • "The booth was decorated to look like one of those advertising strip clubs" - sounds informal
  • "distributed more than 200 Bibles wrapped in T-shirts" - T-shirts is not capitalised in an earlier mention

That's all the prose issues I could find on my initial read-through of the article. In some places there were a few minor errors and I also spotted a few mistakes, but overall it read fine. I know this review is short in comparison to the others, but I don't feel qualified enough to verify all the references! If there is anything else I can do, please let me know. I'll be watching this JAGUAR  17:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns except two. 1) I retained the spelling of "judgment" because this is the American spelling. 2) I'm not fully clear about your concern with respect to the phrase "The booth was decorated to look like one of those advertising strip clubs" being informal; what would you like to see change about this phrase?
Might you be willing to weigh in on the issue of whether or not an article about JC's Girls should be eligible for for featured status? The editors above have suggested that the organization has received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify an article on Wikipedia, and that the article makes good use of these sources and is about as well-written as it can be, but that the available sources do not contain enough critical commentary or contextualization of the organization to allow for a featured article on the subject. I respect the editors who have made this argument. I have always held that articles that are on sufficiently notable subjects to justify inclusion on Wikipedia should also be eligible for featured status, provided that the article is sufficiently well-written and makes full use of the available sources. Whatever your opinion on this subject, I would be glad to know it. I hope that this FAC will be successful, but if it is not, then my future actions with regards to the article will differ greatly depending on whether or not the Wikipedia community believes the article to be on a subject that is ineligible for featured status. If a FAC is unsuccessful because the article is poorly researched or because it is poorly written, then the nominator can research it better or work on the writing and then nominate the article for a second FAC. If, however, a FAC is unsuccessful because the community is unwilling for there to be a featured article on the relevant subject, then the nominator would have no reason to renominate the article for a FAC in the future. Neelix (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
David, judging from the above post you seem to think I am not supporting this article's promotion because I think "the subject ... ineligible for featured status" or because I am "unwilling for there to be a featured article on the relevant subject". I'm disappointed that this is the impression I seem to have given you. My concern—shared by Nick and Sitush, if I have understood them correctly—is about what you mention in the first part of your post regarding commentary, etc. Your comment could be taken as an allegation of bias and/or bad faith on my part and so I hope this was just a case of ambiguous phrasing. I have in fact invested a great deal of time and effort in trying to help you develop this article and bring it up to FA standard.
I'm somewhat concerned by your statement that your "future actions with regards to the article will differ greatly" depending on whether or not FA status looks feasible. In my humble opinion researching, developing and improving the article should be its own reward, not a mere means to the end of successfully nominating at FAC. You have done a fine job on this article considering the material you had to work with, and I commend you for that, but I'm afraid I do not agree that my acknowledgement of your hard work and effort must take the form of a support for FA status—effectively re-purposing the support from an endorsement of the article to a "reward" for the nominator. If JC's Girls receives more in-depth critical coverage in time to allow the development of an article really meeting the FA criteria, I would as always be delighted to try to lend a hand if you wish, but I'm afraid my help must be restricted to reviewing and improving the article as opposed to rationalising on other reviewers' motives. Cheers, I hope that you are well and having a pleasant weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
John, I am very sorry for having written in such a way that my comments could be interpreted as alleging bias and/or bad faith on your part; that was not at all what I intended. I have always greatly appreciated your reviews and comments and I have no reason to believe that your comments here or elsewhere have involved bias or bad faith. In fact, I have much reason to believe that you have acted neutrally and in good faith. You and I happen to disagree about whether or not a subject can have received enough coverage to have a valid Wikipedia article written about it while not having received enough coverage to have a featured Wikipedia article written about it; I think of these two levels of coverage as being the same level, while, if I understand your position correctly, you think of there being a gap between these two levels. That we disagree on this particular point does not impinge upon my high opinion of you, of your work in writing Wikipedia articles, of your willingness to perform thorough reviews, or of anything else about you. I had no intention of implying that your acknowledgement of my work on this article needs to be accompanied by a support for featured status; I do not consider featured article promotions as simply rewards for nominators. If I can further clarify my statements, please let me know. Neelix (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this David. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been caught up in a lot of things! I will support this transition from GA to FA now as I'm happy with the prose. The article appears comprehensive and balanced as well as well referenced. I can see this as a Featured Article. JAGUAR  11:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Info-box
    • We really oughtn't to say "10 years ago" for the founding: that's WP:DATED with a vengeance.
  • Ideology
    • "willing to non-judgmentally accept them" – creaks a bit: how about "willing to accept them non-judgmentally"?
    • Second para – "these women" five times in this para, three of them in the first two sentences.
    • "volunteers tell these women about the gospel but does not try" – a lurch from plural verb to singular verb in this sentence
  • History
    • "As of 2014, the San Diego chapter is the sole chapter" – still true as of 2015?
  • Riverside chapter
    • "when UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph published an article" – You have references (ref 6 a –l) to the text of this Telegraph article several times elsewhere in the article, but – strangely, it seems to me – not here.
    • "Terminally ill" – is a blue link really helpful here? I think everyone knows what "terminally ill" means. (And I'm not convinced that "Christian", "alcoholism" and "freedom of speech" really need linking elsewhere in the text, but I do not press the point.)
  • Reception
    • "A journalist for The Observer" – is it worth mentioning that this is another non-US paper? The international dimension, you know.
  • References
    • We are inconsistent about whether or not to put full stops (periods) in people's initials: S.D. Liddick but KJ Mullins
    • We are also inconsistent with name order: it's mostly Firstname Secondname, but then Johnson, Todd E., and Greenberg, Brad pop up with surnames before forenames.

That's all from me. I don't feel competent to pronounce on the comprehensiveness and balance of the article, or the reliability of some of the sources, although I have no reason to doubt them. I should be happy to see the article promoted, but I refrain from formally supporting. – Tim riley talk 08:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Later: on reflection, and in view of Neelix's pretty impressive record, I am prepared to take the balance, comprehensiveness and sourcing on trust, and to support this article. Tim riley talk 16:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review and your support, Tim! I have altered the article according to most of your recommendations. The statement of "10 years ago" is inherent within the relevant template and is updated automatically; if there is an issue here, please let me know. I retained the wording of the "willing to non-judgmentally accept them" statement because I am concerned that moving the word "non-judgmentally" to the end of the sentence will render the sentence ambiguous, suggesting that it is the communication of the message by JC's Girls that is non-judgmental rather than the acceptance by the Christians, although there may be an alternative wording that would prevent the creakiness you mention. I apologize for taking a few days to respond to your message; I have had a very busy weekend outside of Wikipedia. I greatly appreciate your faith in my editing. Neelix (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Leaning heavily towards supporting, but just one point to consider first:


  • "In 2003,[10]": what is this supporting? That the year 2003 existed is all I can see! I presume that you have one source (ref 11) that deals with all the details of "Veitch discovered that a friend of hers who was working as a stripper had died as a result of alcoholism", and one source (ref 10) that may deal with some of it, but contain the additional 2003 information. If that's right, stick both refs at the end of the sentence.

I've also tweaked the Grecco image slightly (made smaller and added a {{clear}} to the notes section) as on wider screens the image was moving into the refs listings and leaving a large white space. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, but it's worth leaving there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, SchroCat! I hadn't realized that the Grecco image spilled into the references on wide screens. I appreciate you addressing that issue. With respect to the citations you mention, you are correct; one source includes all the information except the year while the other includes all the information except the cause of death. I have moved the first citation to after the word "died" in order to address the concern you raise while also preventing the potential implication that both sources contain all the information in the sentence. Does this solution work for you? Neelix (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. All good now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Singora (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[edit]

I agree with Sitush ("I'm sorry but this is ridiculous Christian evangelising. Most of the content seems to revolve around smarmy media interviews") and Cliftomian ("the article seems unreflective and uncritical. Very little context is given here. I understand this is largely down to the lack of sources").

I lived in BKK for more than a decade and heard often about an organization called Empower. Check it out. You'll find plenty of info on JSTOR and Google scholar. Google books also throws up a few hits. If you want to write an academic article about the sex industry, Empower would make a very interesting subject.

IMO, this JC Girls organization warrants no more than half a dozen paragraphs at most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singora (talkcontribs)

Maya civilization[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Maya civilization was one of the great civilizations of world history, with the earliest cities developing in the 8th century BC. The civilization developed a complex society, with major cities, a fully developed writing system, and a warrior aristocracy. It underwent a number of major changes through its history, and the Maya area was never unified into a "Maya Empire", rather existing as a large number of competing polities entwined in a complex network of alliances, vassalage, and enmities. I did a lot of work on this for the Core Contest, and it recently passed GA. It's well polished, and it would be a shame not to take it that final step after so much work. I look forward to any feedback. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Now moved to Support: Comments by Johnbod Seems a magnificent piece of work! It's great to see a really BIG topic at FAC, & a vindication of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. It will take some time to work through - I went to "art" first & have fiddled a bit there. More comments later.

  • Were the Maya much involved in the complicated improvement of cultivated maize, or was that essentially complete before their time? The same for other plants I suppose.
According to The Mysterious Origin of Maize by Mary W. Eubanks, maize domestication took place outside of the Maya area, in central Mexico, and in Oaxaca. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

More later, Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Link some things at "The set of traits shared by Mesoamerican cultures also included astronomical knowledge, blood and human sacrifice, and a cosmovision that viewed the world as divided into four divisions aligned with the cardinal directions, each with different attributes, and a three-way division of the world into the celestial realm, the earth, and the underworld"? There are various possibilities, all linked below I'm sure, but a long way down. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In general some paras should be split - I realize the alleged 4 para lead limit is one issue. The one beginning "Chiapas occupies the extreme southeast of Mexico;..." is 279 words long.
  • I've split that one - let me know if any others need splitting, since they look OK on my laptop screen. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • on the other hand "but all regions of Mesoamerica cultivated the base crops of maize, beans, and squashes" were linked in the lead, a little way above. They turn up again lower down.
  • I've run through with AWB and cleaned out all repeated wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • " after c. 1000 AD copper, silver and gold were worked. " not linked anywhere.
  • "Geography" Paras 1 & 2, too much repetition & repeated links between these and from lead I think
  • "Geography" this is pretty confusing/meaningless without a map namimg some of these places or features.
  • I've uploaded a modified version of the map, with labels. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Lots of repeated links in Pre-Classic
  • I've stipped out the repeated links, except where they were specifically requested. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Classic period: Something awry at "The period was one the peak of large-scale construction and urbanism..."
  • "There is evidence that the Maya population exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment; contributing factors included exhaustion of agricultural potential, deforestation, and overhunting of megafauna. Shifts in climate appear to have simultaneously resulted in a 200-year long drought." rather chewy to read - the bolded bits create slight confusion. Don't we have a better link, and indeed phrase, for "exhaustion of agricultural potential"?
  • That's it for now. More later, Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Resuming:
  • " with the ruler's freedom of action being limited by traditional responses." reads oddly - "responses" in particular. "cultural patterns" or something?
  • How about changing it to "with the ruler's freedom of action being limited to traditional responses."? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "single rule was replaced by a ruling council" - there's a word for this - monarchy. Or some other phrase, but "single rule" is unusual and grammatically dubious I think.
  • " large swathes of the central Maya area were all but abandoned" - are we sure this applied to the countryside (not the right term no doubt)? Or just the cities?
  • Yes, entirely abandoned in many cases, with very low levels of occupation thereafter, and fields reverting to jungle. Large areas were never repopulated at all. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't see that any of the many mentions of Chichen Itza have links! I'd give it 4 : lead, 2 pic captions, Postclassic period.
  • Looks like I was a little over-zealous in stripping out links with AWB! Anyway, I've linked as suggested. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Kaminaljuyu, linked in lead, but not in caption, or when covered in detail.
  • I've linked from the caption, and from the Preclassic section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "Valley of Guatemala" (x2 at least) normally capitalized? Few valleys are.
  • Valley of Guatemala is usually capitalised as a geographical feature, while "Guatemala valley" would not be. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Shortly afterwards, the Spanish were invited as allies into Iximche, the capital city of the Kaqchikel Maya.[137] Good relations did not last and the city was abandoned a few months later." - a couple of words on why?
  • Excessive Spanish demands for gold - clarified. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Something on the survival of literacy in the late period might be worked in here - this isn't too clear in the writing section either. Both books and stelae.
Ok, enough in the writing section. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally captions are link-starved. Eg Catherwood. Normally captions should be fully linked.
  • The end of "investigation ..." section might add a phrase on the collapse of the "peace-loving" meme too.
  • "Rather, throughout its history, the Maya area contained a varying mix of states and chiefdoms" - who are these chiefs? Subordinate kings? Did subordinate cities have their own kings? A bit confusing as is.
  • The point I'm trying to explain (unsuccessfully!) is that there was no fixed model - the reference to chiefdom vs state is to complexity in political development. These would sometimes be independent, and sometimes allied, or subordinate to, other polities. I've attempted to clarify this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Chiefdom says, I think reasonably, "A chiefdom is a form of hierarchical political organization in non-industrial societies usually based on kinship, and in which formal leadership is monopolized by the legitimate senior members of select families or 'houses'." Do we know if Maya rulers were regarded as the kin of their commoners, even in the remote sense of say modern Scottish clan chiefs and their Canadian clan members? Or were they like say Norman barons, foreign nobility who turned up one day with some henchmen? I think introducing this concept, when we already have talk of king, ruler, warrior elite, nobility, aristocracy & probably other ideas, is a bit confusing when nothing more is said of it. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a large literature about the development of Maya kingship, and the transition from chiefdoms to complex states took place in the formative period - i.e. at the very beginning of the Maya civilization. In the classic period vestiges of chiefdoms existed only in the small rural outskirts that were generally incorporated politically into a state. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so I think unless something like this is explained another word would be better.Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that by the Postclassic period, states and chiefdoms coexisted - for example, Nojpetén, Q'umarkaj, Mayapan, and Chichen Itza were regionally dominant states, while in some areas there was no unified political organisation, such as with the Manche Ch'ol and the Kejache, where towns and villages were ruled by local chiefs without any pledges of allegiance elsewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I dout very much that those were chiefdoms in the anthropological sense of a society with an incipient degree of social stratification. Not every society led by a "chief" is a chiefdom in the technical sense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the sources describing these as chiefdoms come from anthropological journals. The sources seem clear that both chiefdoms and states coexisted throughout Maya history, up to the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know anything about the land ownership system?
  • Based on land-ownership systems at the time of conquest, and continuing to the modern day in traditional Maya communities, land was communally held by noble houses (clans). I've added a couple of sentences in the society section. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Maya art tends to be stylistically regional", reads oddly. "Maya art has many regional styles" perhaps. Style (visual arts) could linked. Then "Maya art ... and is unique in the ancient Americas in bearing narrative text" does it actually have narratives, speaking strictly?
  • Rephrased as suggested. Maya art does contain narrative text - just one example among many, at Quirigua, text on monumental scultpure describes the capture of the ruler's overlord, and sacrifice, with names, dates, actions and places. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is estimated that a large elite residence at Copán required an estimated 445 man-days to build,..." Is that right? It doesn't sound a lot, when you include quarrying the stone etc. Only 11% = 42-man-days odd for "principal construction" as builders call it. 6 men for a full week. We could do with builders like that where I live! Then you say " it is estimated that two to three months were required for the construction of the residence for this single noble at Copán, using between 80 and 130 full-time labourers." Is a figure missing?
  • I've double checked, and all the figures are correct as per the source. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
But there is clearly a big problem! At the minimum, 80 men for 2 months (say 60 days - I assume we're not on the Maya calendar here, or taking weekends off) = 4,800 man days. 80 men use 445 man-days in 5.56 days. On the other hand they use 4450 man-days in 55.6 working days. If you can't get to the primary source, I suggest you rephrase dropping the 445 figures & just using the later ones. Typos are not unknown in proper publishing. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK - problem found. 10,686 work days in the original study, became 10,686 work hours in the book I used (which I represented as 445 days). Well spotted! Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Aah, that is more like builders round here! (Just kidding, guys) Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Limestone is relatively soft when freshly cut, but hardens with exposure" - i believe this is true of some limestones, like Caen stone, but not others.
  • That being the case, I've clarified to "the local limestone". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "served as a support for monumental art" - "support" reads oddly, though museums use it as a term for what a painting is on top of: surface, base, matrix?
  • In this case, support seems the right word - since it would be a masonry core, literally supporting the sculpture added to it, almost like a stone scaffold. Matrix would certainly not be right, nor surface, since it is a whole construction. I've reworded as "foundation for". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • E-Groups: Since these come as sets of 4, better explain at the start that they are not so called because they resemble an "E" shape (as Elizabethan "E-houses" do).
  • "Regional architectural styles" sub-section starting bit - short & somewhat repetitive. Can it be phrased more compactly?
  • "amatl, was typically bound as a single continuous sheet that was folded into pages of equal width, concertina-style, to produce a codex" - I found this confusing, mainly because of "bound", which arguably they are not, they're just folded (On a side point, the anomalous but universal use of "codex" for Meso-A texts is also confusing for those more used to Western bindings. Really, they aren't codices. But it's too late to change that usage.). "was typically in the form of a single continuous sheet ...." maybe?
  • "studies in decipherment have moved to a level of detail that does not significantly alter the basic understanding of the text itself." reads a bit confusingly. Maybe "studies in decipherment have moved to a level of detail where only minor aspects of the meaning remain unsettled" or something?
  • " a noun, verb, adverb, adjective, or phonetic sign... nouns, verbs, verbal suffixes, prepositions, pronouns." Links? I dunno.
  • "Commoners were illiterate; scribes were drawn from the elite. It is not known if all members of the aristocracy could read and write, although at least some women could, since there are representations of female scribes in Maya art" and the rest of the section. Just saying, it is typically the case in societies that many more people can read than can write. In the West they were taught separately, reading first, then writing, until relatively recently, with many dropping out after learning to read. Do the sources distinguish in this way?
  • Not that I recall having seen, I'll check some sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Spinden Correlation also accords with the documentary evidence, and is better suited to the archaeology of the Yucatán Peninsula, but presents problems with the rest of the Maya region. The Spinden Correlation would shift the Long Count dates back by 260 years." Reverse the order of these 2 sentences?
  • "so Maya astronomy is more accurately termed astrology" seems a little sweeping. "so Maya astronomy was essentially for astrological purposes" perhaps. Western astronomy ran together with astrology for rather a long time, as did that of other cultures. Merely the predicting of eclipses takes Mayan A beyond astrology if you ask me.
  • "Maya sites" - a couple of lines on the best museums?
  • I've added a new section with the major collections covered in the literature. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that's it (finally). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, supporting above. The "chief" point may be still in play, but I'll leave SB & Maunus to settle that. Fantastic work! Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for a thorough review, and for the support! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus[edit]

  • Considering the vast improvements taking place during the review, for an article that was already of extremely high quality, I am now happy to support this article's candidacy. I particularly think that the length concerns have been very well handled so that it cannot be considered a problem any longer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review and the support. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a great piece of work definitely, and the topic will be an immensely important addition to the FA collection. Given the scarcity of Native American related topics at that level I think it is worth it for the article to be sure that we set the best possible precedent. Particularly I think we need to give some serious thought to the question of representation. I will list some concerns that I have about this below. I realize that addressing these concerns will be a bit of work, requiring some reorganization and rewriting. I am not adamant that all of this has to be addressed in a specific way, but I think for me to be able to support we will at least have to have the discussion about how to approach this and how best to address the basic concerns.

  • The article focuses on the "ancient" Maya civilization. I think it risks doing so at the expense of severing the historical Maya culture from contemporary Maya culture and in doing so reinforcing a myth that I think the article should in fact debunk - namely the myth that "the Maya disappeared". I think the way to address this would be to make sure that the myth is explicitly debunked, and that the continuity between ancient and contemporary Maya culture is part of the framing of all parts of the article. There are for example no illustrations of living Maya people. A section towards the end on "Maya culture today", might be one way to address this problem, but it would also motivate some reframing thoughout the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to distinguish between Maya culture and the Maya civilization - which effectively ended with the incorporation of the Maya region into the extended Old World economic and technological order, and were no longer free to develop, build, worship, fight, etc. according to their own indigenous interests. The point is well made that they did not disappear, however, and a section near the end on the continuance of Maya culture would be worthwhile. When writing the Spanish conquest of the Maya articles, I believe I wrote something along these lines that I could incorporate into the article. When working on this article for the Core Contest, I was acutely aware of how lengthy the article was getting - the problem was never what to write, rather what to leave out. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think such a distinction is both highly problematic (both because of the hierarchic implications of distinguishing between culture and civilization, and because there is no way to objectively define a point in time when a civilizaiton ends and becomes a culture, and also because it arbitrarily sever modern Maya from their past). And even if it is possible I dont think it can be done without describing the way that the civilization relates to the culture. I understand the length problems, but I would never personally prefer a short article to a comprehensive one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly not for me to define cultures and civilizations, and the relationship between the two; however, once the area was incorporated into the Spanish Empire, many of the definining elements of the Maya civilization either disappeared altogether, went underground, or were merged with European cultural elements. I don't think there will be many sources at all that refer to the Maya civilization continuing after the Spanish conquest. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you can be pretty sure that many Maya would disagree and state that Maya civilization is what they live and breathe every day. When I said "how the civilization relates to the culture" I didnt mean that you should try to elaborate on the differences between those two concepts, but describe which cultural aspects of the civilization live on in contemporary Maya culture.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I will put together a section - it shouldn't be too difficult. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to say that though the distinction between a culture and a civilization may always be rather "problematic", that does not mean it should not be made. In fact it is probably easier to do so with the Maya than almost any other large culture, because the collapse(s) was/were apparently very dramatic, and also because our sources about the long immediately succeeding periods are so very slim in comparison. The article title is "Maya civilization" and I think it should mainly stick to what it says on the tin. It would be highly undesirable to largely skip nearly 1,000 years and have a lot on the post-conquest culture that we know a lot about, as though that were the same subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I disagree. It would not have to "skip 1000 years" for one - it would of course include the 500 years from the conquest to now - and suggesting that the sources about the intermediate period is slim is simply wrong. These are exactly the misconceptions that the article should dispell if it wants to convey a contemporary understanding of the Maya and their civilization.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think you would agree. It's strange how this sort of approach, so popular in the 19th century regarding Europe, and so totally discredited now, seems to persist in anthropology when it comes to the Global South. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I dont even understand what you mean by that. You have it backward it seems, and in general seem not to have much idea about anthropology. The idea of "civilization" is a 19th century concept that Europeans have used to hierarchically order peoples in the global south as being on a lower stage of development. That is why anthropologists tend not to use it. Just like Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Moden greeks from Greek civilization - today then obviously the millions of contmeporary Maya can claim cultural continuity from their pre-conquest ancestors. To arbitrarily set a cut off point where the "civilization" suddenly becomes a culture is a 19th century silly idea, that has no backing in contemporary scholarship whether in anthropology or in any other discipline. It is your misconception about long hiatus periods that is counterfactual and which the article needs to clearly debunk because it is the most common misconception about the Maya.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
"Danes can claim continuation from the Vikings and the Modern greeks from Greek civilization" are two excellent examples of the discredited approach I referred to, with the Anglo-Saxons and modern Britain a third. It was the Nazis who really put the stake in the heart of that sort of stuff. By the way, don't tell a Dane he is descended from Vikings - they may get very upset. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You may want to try not to lecture Danes about what Danes think. Danes like me are generally proud of the Danish Viking past, and it is integrated in almost all aspects of Danish national identity. The same for Greeks. So yes, it is discredited as an expression of historical fact, largely thanks to anthropologists who have repeatedly questioned is correspondence with historical reality. And it is of course anthropologists who have played the major role in exposing the fallacies of nationalist ideologies in general. But the fact of historical continuation and the claim of it are two different things. And just as English people happily claim Alfred the Great as their nations founder, so do every body else with their National symbols - regardless of whether that relation is historically factual. Denying the ability to politically claim their history only to colonized peoples is hypocritical and contrary to how anyone writes history of the peoples of the global south today, and hence contrary to how we should write history today on wikipedia. You will not find a book about the Maya written since 1980s that do not emphasize the continuity with contemporary Maya and the fact that Maya civilization never dissappeared. Contemporary Mayas are the stewards and proprietors of the Maya civilization, just as the Greek Nation are of the Greek Civilization, The Egyptian Nation of the Egyptian Civilization. The fact that the Maya happened to be conquered at one point in history and have spent the last 500 years as part of colonial states changes nothing of this.[this response has been edited after editconflict with response below, main meaning has not been changed]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Actually, and rightly or wrongly, very few British people would "claim Alfred the great as their nations founder", happily or not, and many would not have heard of him at all. But I don't think there is much to be gained by continuing this. It would be nice if you or others could join in restoring "Viking" to WP's articles, after the attempted mass-removal of the word, which the admins have completely failed to do anything about. Of course that was actually by a Swede. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right it leads nowhere. I dont really understand why you have taken up a habit of taking swings against me and anthropology as a discipline whenever our paths cross on wiki lately. It is not very productive. s for Vikings, I may descend from one, but I dont generally edit Nordic history articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important that the article remain focused on the pre-Columbian Maya - the modern Maya is a theme for another article, such as Maya peoples or Maya society (which currently contains ancient Maya society, and should probably be moved). However, I will put in a short section stressing the continuity of Maya culture. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree of course that the focus should be on the pre-columbian tradition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Short section added. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Maya are the only precolumbian people for whom we have access to written historical sources, and correspondingly we have actual historical knowledge about Maya rulers as individuals, and about political relations in their own words. Could we imagine writing about Roman civilization without mentioning specific rulers by name and describing their political achievements? In the history section here, the only named individual in the running text is David Stuart. The only mentioned Maya individual in the history section is K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat (no mention of his period of rulership, which would serve to give him life as a historical figure), in a picture caption. No Pacal, No Siyaj K'ak, No Spearthrower Owl, or Yax k'uk Mo, no Lady Xok etc. The representation of history is anonymized and described as a process without actors (the cities themselves are given agency), which I think reinforces antiquated stereotypes of the Maya as an anonymous "lost civilization" with no "real" history. (Jasaw Chan Kawiil is mentioned twice, but not in the history section, and Taj Chan Ahjk is mentioned in the writing section). I also think some examples of how Maya texts record historical events, such as conquests would be needed in the history section, where illustrations are focused only on temple structures and archeological non-textual remains.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct of course - Siyaj K'ak, Y'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat, Uaxackajun Ub'aah Kawiil, Yax Nuun Ayiin etc. can certainly be worked into the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added some names and dated events, more to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Maya civilization is described in a vacuum, with little description of the wider Mesoamerican context, their predecessors and contemporaries with whom they shared cultural patterns and trade and political relations. I think this can be addressed simultaneously with my first point, for example by making a "Cultural background" section - where the ethno-linguistic, cultural and historical makeup of Mesoamerica is presented and the Maya are situated within that larger framework. That would also be a place where the cultivation of Maize, as suggested by Johnbod, could be addressed, and where the continuity between ancient and contemporary cultures can be emphasized.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added a section briefly summarising Mesoamerica. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a little too short (and that the geography section is correspondingly too long and detailed). I think this would be a good section in which to point out that Maya civilization = civilization of Maya peoples, and that Maya peoples = people who speak Mayan languages. And if I were you I would integrate the short "language" section into the "Mesoamerica" section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I will expand it some, but this is an article about the Maya; I don't think it should branch out too much - full detail should be available in the Mesoamerica article. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, I think that it should not so much be about "Mesoamerica" in general, but about "Mesoamerica and the Maya", i.e. drawing out the specific relations between the Mesoamerican culture area and the Maya civilization. For example speakers of Mayan languages are assumed to have participated in the Mesoamerican culture area since its beginning, not necessarily being the first to cultivate maize or build a pyramid - but they definitely participated in the networks of knowledge and trade through which those innovations spread in the earliest period. And they have continuously been receiving and sending goods and ideas from other areas of Mesoamerica - so mentioning some of the elements the maya share with the rest of Mesoamerica (ball courts, vigesimal numerals, calendar, sacrifice, political organization etc.) as well as the areas where they stand out, might be a good thing to have in that section. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The "rediscovery" section is both weirdly placed, and, I think, badly named. It suggests again, that Maya civilization was lost untill white people came and "rediscovered" it. Maya civilization of course was alive and well at the conquest, with thriving cities. And the ruins, though some were admittedly forgotten, played an active part in the way that Maya understood, and continue to understand their past. I think this section should be refocused to be not about "rediscovery" but about scientific study. And it probaly also should be moved up to right after the history section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I probably inherited this section title and position from the pre-existing article. I'll see what I can do with it. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Moved and renamed. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the writing section is good, but I think it should give a basic idea of how the script works particularly focusing on the fact that it records Mayan languages that we can actually read. In contrast I think it focuses a bit too much on the mechanics of writing, which could be shortened. At least one example of a glyphic texts with its transliteration and translation I think is necessary. Other places where glyphic text might be good illustrations is where you mention the Maya words Kalomte, k'uhul Ajaw - which are of course extremely frequently occuring glyphs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added a section describing reading order etc. I'll add an inscription and translation, as soon as I can find a decent photo on Commons corresponding to a sourced block-by-block transcription. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think that an analytical line drawing would be better than a photo of an actual inscription. To my great surprise there isn't even one of those at our article on the script. Perhaps we could get one made in svg at the graphics lab. The standard example is the differnt ways to write "b'alam" with a logogram, with syllabograms and with combination of the logogram with syllabograms as phonetic complements. For example found at page 24-25 in this pdf.[18] I am sure the graphic artists at the graphics lab could make svg examples of these examples. I've taken the liberty of requesting them at the graphics lab.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added the glyphs to the section. If we want to condense more I think it is also a section that could be considerably shortened to a sinle section without subsections. I would suggest moving the entire sections about scribes and writing tools to the main article on Maya writing, and summarize them each in a single sentence. I could condense the section a little more by removing what I think is superfluous sentences if requested by the nominator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Diversidad de Maiz mesoamericano.jpg
Amazing Maize.jpg
Beautyfull corn.JPG
Corncobs edit1.jpg
Día Internacional de los Pueblos Indígenas (7852553230).jpg
  • About Images: I think the lead should not have two images of monumental architecture, it would be better if one of them depicted some other cultural form. I think a hieroglyphic text would be good, but it could also be a vase or a flint or a stucco detail. The atlatl photo is terrible and doesnt provide any information - I would remove it. The Maize photo is also quite poor, and I think a different more aesthetically pleasing photo of corn should be easy to find.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I kind of liked the maize photo, because it showed diffent colours of maize... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sure we can find one where the maize is better in focus and doesnt look like its been eaten by gorgojo. I'll look around.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I've switched the image. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I also swapped the lead image of Palenque for detail from a Yaxchilan lintel. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Support from Singora Singora (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • 1. Could "exhaustion of agricultural potential" be re-worded to something like "depleted agricultural resources"?
Thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me add a bit of credibility by saying I visited the Mayan world about 25 years ago. I flew from London to Miami and then took a Mexicana flight to Cancun. I remember seeing Chichen Itza early in the morning when the site abounded with giant lizards; I saw Uxmal and climbed the pyramid of the magician; I took a bus down to Belize and checked out a Mayan complex near the Guatemalan border. Tikal was good, but better was a little known site called (I think) Ceibal. I got to Quirigua when it was pouring with rain, but found the site really interesting. Copan in Honduras was good, but maybe a bit "over restored". I then headed back into Guatemala and saw a small Mayan complex near the Mexian border (can't remember the name), and then continued north to Mexico City. Teotihuacan was impressive; much better was Tula -- the lost city of the Toltecs! Singora (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Due to the sheer size of the article, it may take a little while for my review to finish, so comments will come gradually. I've recently read some old books about ancient American civilizations, so will be good to get some updated info... FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "which covers a region that spreads from northern Mexico southwards into Central America,[1] covering an area of approximately" Isn't the second "covering" redundant here?
  • "Mesoamerican Nuclear Area" hat is meant by this?
  • I've dropped the phrase - a quick search found very limited use of the term, and no definition. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Maya artists apparently painted murals at Cacaxtla" Why apparently?
  • I've clarified this - more recent research prefers a strong Maya influence over direct painting by Maya artists. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Somewhat related to the discussion below, I find it a bit puzzling why we need to know both which Mexican states were part of the Maya territory and what Mexican states are located on the Yucatan peninsula? Isn't the latter listing redundant/overdetailed? Perhaps say something like "Apart from/outside Mexico/the Mexican states, the Yucatan peninsula incorporates most of the Guatemalan department of Petén, and all of Belize." Or just say that Yucatan incorporates parts of Mexico, Guatemala, and all of Belize.
  • I've trimmed down the geography section. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a matter of taste, but under Weapons, I'd prefer to see a depiction of an actual Maya weapon, instead of some random modern person playing around with a replica. No images of swords or stuff like that? This free image, for example, seems to show a warrior in costume and with a spear or sword:
  • A photo of the same object was already on Commons; I've swapped it in. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool, not bad to have more of this fantastic artwork either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "n the Postclassic, the Maya engaged in a flourishing slave trade.[211]" With who?
  • Slaves were traded across Mesoamerica, I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Maya stelae is not linked until the art section, though stelae are mentioned many times prior to this.
  • It is first linked from the lead, and linked again from art. Does it need more than this? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The MOS recommendation (policy?) seems to be that after the intro, a word should only be linked at first occurrence. But well, not a show stopper for me at least. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
It seemed more apt linking from the section actually dealing with stelae... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bone, both human and animal, was also sculpted" It this the correct way to put it? I assume you mean sculptures were made from bone, but now it could read like they made sculptures that depicted bones...
Techically this is no problem, & I didn't feel a problem reading it. Might "carved" reduce any concerns? Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If it's correct use, no problem. I'm not a native English speaker. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Under writing system we get: "The Catholic Church and colonial officials destroyed Maya texts wherever they found them, and with them the knowledge of Maya writing, but by chance three uncontested pre-Columbian books dated to the Postclassic period have been preserved. These are known as the Madrid Codex, the Dresden Codex and the Paris Codex.[329]" And then again in the very next section, we get: "Shortly after the conquest, all of the codices which could be found were ordered to be burnt and destroyed by zealous Spanish priests, notably Bishop Diego de Landa.[340] Only a few reasonably intact examples of Maya codices are known to have survived through to the present day, including the Madrid, Dresden, and Paris codices.[329]" Seems these two paragraphs should be merged.
  • I see there is a Women in Maya society article, but there is little mention of their role under the Society section here, left me wondering a bit (though I see there are some mentions scattered in other sections). Perhaps a single extra sentence or paragraph would be enough to cover it.
  • Support - I'm sure the length issue will be dealt with through the discussion below. But in my opinion, it is just a matter of taste, I don't see any "objective" arguments for why shorter should necessarily be better. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review, and for the support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Oppose solely on the basis of size. Huge kudos to you for tackling such a large article. I learned a great deal from reading it. The biggest issue I have is that this article is crazy long. I understand that as a larger topic, but this would be the longest FA ever passed (several thousand words larger than Byzantine Empire). I think there is much more room for summary style, which may mean that one or more child articles still need to be created. I only got as far as Warfare, but here are a few suggestions for cutting.

  • There's repetition in the Mesoamerican section and the rest of the article. I wonder if the entire second paragraph (or most of it) can go.
  • This section was added at the request Maunus - see above - whether it stays or goes will have to be decided between you. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the information is necessary, but that it could probably be conveyed more concisely. I think it should be possible for example to comnbine the Mesoamerica and Geography sections into a short section of two paragraphs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we need quite so much detail in the Geography section? Unless the geography has changed from then to now, I don't see that this is that useful beyond the first paragraph and a second paragraph that just mentions the amount of coastline and the differing types of landscape. I don't believe we need the details of this region and that region in this article.
  • Could you put year ranges in the headings for the different periods? I kept having to refer back to the table.
  • Most articles like this have a "History of <topic>" child article, which summarizes the different periods. This article does not. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to use what you have in the current history section to seed a History of the Maya civilization article, and perhaps make the history section in this article a little shorter.
  • While I agree that a child article should be created, what is here is already a brief summary of Maya history (it was briefer, but Maunus requested more specific detail, with good reason, see above). Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that my requests for more specificity and inclusion of Maya rulers as agents could be accommodated while also shortening the section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've shortened the History section. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of interesting details in the article (such as the sentences on the rituals surrounding the king/prince), but I wonder if this overview article is the appropriate place for them.
  • The Classic Maya civilization was centred upon divine kingship, so the article would be lacking without this, which could be covered in much more detail in a subarticle. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the King and court section, I'd get rid of a lot of the definitions of different words. A paragraph discussing the loose hierarchy could be a lot shorter than what is currently in the article
  • I think they are necessary in an overview of the civilization. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there are too many images in the article. It's a bit distracting.

Karanacs (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A comment to the last point, I strongly disagree that there are too many images. Without the images, it would be harder to follow the text. They break up the wall of text, give the reader something to relate to/context, and they are not cluttered. I somewhat agree about summarising parts, though. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Funk Monk. One could argue for more of them - there is no image in the religion section, which is a bit odd. Personally I don't care for the multiple image template that has suddenly become fashionable, but the use here is far more restrained than in some other articles on this page. On size, I agree the article is long, & I wonder if any of us have read it all in one go - I certainly didn't. But this is an encyclopedia dammit, articles are supposed to be long and in places boring! This is a big core topic, and the magazine-ish approach we can take on many smaller topics isn't appropriate. Some of your specific points may have merit. As a further suggestion, I asked for a museum section, & have certainly got one. But since this adds some 5K, can I suggest it is relocated to Maya art, with just a sentence with a link here? I also note that the architecture section here is longer than the "main article" Maya architecture, and with less overlap than one might think. I think some of the content here might go there instead. I also note we don't have History of the Maya civilization or anything similar. Floating that off & replacing with a shorter summary would lose many K. Just thoughts. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I also agree, there are not too many images at all. This topic requires a high degree of visual support and is the better for having it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
First response - since the FAC started, four sections (at a glance) were added as a response to reviewer requests, suggesting that, while the article is long, it is not too long considering the level of the topic. I will shorten the Geography section, which is probably overly detailed, and will move off much of the museums section as suggested. Note that the individual sections are already concise summaries of broad topics, and should not really be condensed more, and they should not be judged by the poor quality of currently existing subtopic articles (for example, there is more here on Maya astronomy than in the Maya astronomy article). The architecture section really contains the bare minimum that it should cover as an introduction - the regional styles are frequently mentioned in the literature, and should stay. I disagree that there are too many images, which are carefully spaced and selected to illustrate the article - when I first came to the article there were galleries, which I stripped out. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In general I disagree that the length should be considered a major problem. As Johnbod says this is an encyclopedia, and it is supposed to be informative not entertaining. As long as length is justified by the actual informational content (i.e. not repetitive or redundant, not going off-topic, or overly wordy) I see nothing to be gained by simply shortening it to be readable in a single sitting. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that it is so long, actually 15% longer than the longest FA previously promoted, is a sign that summary style is not being used appropriately. There may very well have been more information that needed to be added, which means either a) there were gaps in the coverage or b) parts of the article were too detailed which means the parts that weren't looked uncomprehensive, and, thus, reviewers asked for me. I think in this case it was a combination of the two. A good direct comparison is Byzantine Empire, an FA which is several thousand words shorter. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. In particularly broad articles excessive use of summary style makes for an article that is fluffy and full of empty, vague statements, but with little of the actual hard information that readers are likely to be looking for. It is not a service to readers to write vacuous articles that provide links to articles where they may or may not find the information they are looking for. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that, but also that it is too long. I would rather see specific areas cut (floated off) in chunks (I've suggested some above) than the whole article slimmed down pro rata. That is also less work. Creating a "history of" article seems the easiest way, and perhaps the best. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the history section is what would be more beneficious to cut. I would combine the Mesoamerica+Geography into a single paragraph section, Politics+Society+Warfare+Trade+Agriculture into a single section with single paragraph subsections, shorten Writing and Literacy into a single section with no subsections, and combine calendar+astronomy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I guess it is a matter of taste, but I agree with Johnbod, the history section goes into extreme detail (the hardest section for me to get through when reading the article), and I just don't see how the other sections should be cut in favour of that, this would basically just be a history of the Maya civilisation article as a result. If anything has to be cut (which may not be necessary), I support a history article being split off and summarising it here, that would be more balanced. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of options in how it can be better streamlined. I don't have a particular preference, although I think that several of the ideas floated make sense. The point is that there are places where cuts could be made and places where they shouldn't. I'll rely on Simon's expertise to figure out which data falls into which bucket. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Having created a History of the Maya civilization article, I see now that the History section is too detailed for the article (it looks almost like a complete article in its own right). I am working at trimming it down, while still leaving a few specific events related to the Tikal-Calakmul struggle. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: This has now come down from a peak crude size (per edit history) of 213,695 on 12 June to 191,641 now. I note btw that Barack Obama is an FA at 258K crude size. Byzantine Empire is now at 179K, though it was 185-187K until last month. Has enough been done? I think so, though another 5-10K reduction would be ideal. What do others think? User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics unfortunately has not been kept updated, but most articles there seem to have put on weight over the years since. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've cut out all the redundant refs, which has dropped the total size by about 8K. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's the readable prose size that matters (the larger number includes all the HTML and templates). The Obama article has fewer than 10k words. FYI, here is the list of Longest FAs as of Nov 2014. 15k words, which is where the article currently stands, would still be the longest FA ever passed. I haven't read through again since the changes started to be implemented. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that, according to the linked list, Manhattan Project Passed FAC 2011 with 15,227 words. Maya civilization currently stands at 15183, so wouldn't be setting any precedent. Manhattan Project was the first on the list, but the list isn't ordered by size, so there are probably other, longer, articles. (just had a quick look, Elvis Presley was also longer). Simon Burchell (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe this has been dealt with. I've posted to Karanacs diff, and am awaiting a response. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "This region consists of the northern lowlands, encompassing the Yucatán Peninsula, the highlands of the Sierra Madre," 1. Lowlands of what? 2. Is it 'the lowlands encompassing (the peninsula and the highlands)' (which sounds odd) or (the lowlands encompassing the peninsula), and the highlands?
  • The lowlands encompass the Yucatán Peninsula, I've shifted the punctuation. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Preclassic period saw the establishment of the first sedentary communities in the Maya region" 1. As this is the first mention of the preclassic I would add (c.2000 BC to 250 AD). 2. You say it saw the first sedentary communities, but Sharer and Traxler p. 98 say that in the archaic period there were "Settled communities and agriculture". 3. I was going to suggest that you should link somewhere to the article on the archaic Maya, but there does not seem to be one!
  • I've clarified this, both in the lead, and in the intro to the History section. In the absence of an article on the Archaic, I've linked to the appropriate subsection of Mesoamerican chronology. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Human sacrifice should be mentioned in the lead as it was an important part of Maya culture.
  • "cardinal directions" - it would be helpful to link this.
  • "Forming a language area Mesoamerican languages share a number of important features, including widespread loanwords, and use of a vigesimal number system." This could be more clearly expressed, e.g. "Mesoamerican languages form a language area which share a number of important features, including widespread loanwords, and use of a vigesimal (base 20) number system."
  • "In an extraordinary act of treachery for someone claiming to be of the Tikal royal family, he thereafter served as a loyal ally of Calakmul" I would delete "extraordinary act of treachery" as POV.
  • "Its Classic-period dynasty was founded in 426 by K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo'. The new king " New king implies a previous one but you say he was the first.
  • He was the first king of the new dynasty. There was apparently an earlier series of kings, but very little is known about them. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "This model of rulership was poorly structured to respond to changes, with the ruler's freedom of action being limited to traditional responses. The rulers reacted in their culturally-bound manner, by intensifying such activities as construction, ritual, and warfare. This was counterproductive and only served to exacerbate systemic problems.[" This is a bit vague. What changes and systemic problems, and what did rulers fail to do?
  • I think that shortening the section has removed some of the context - I'll see if I can fill some back in. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Activity shifted to the northern lowlands and the Maya Highlands" I think it is worth pointing out that major northern Yucatan polities such as Uxmal were only founded in the postclassic period.
  • Hmm. Sharer and Traxler p536 is clear that Uxmal reached its height in the Late Classic, and was inhabited for an unknown length of time before that. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you have misread them. They say Terminal Classic, 800-1000. On p. 534: "These new Puuc cities, such as Uxmal, Kabah, Sayil, Labna and others, were founded, grew, prospered, and ultimately declined over the relatively brief interval of about two hundred years during the Terminal Classic period."
  • Terminal Classic is still Classic, not Postclassic... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies. I should have said: I think it is worth pointing out that major northern Yucatan polities such as Uxmal were only founded in the Terminal Classic period. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've just checked against several sources, and Uxmal predates the Terminal Classic - Sharer and Traxler above, as cited, but also Demarest 2004, p. 236. has "...lowland Classic Maya civilization began to flourish in the seventh and eighth centuries in the Puuc hill the eighth century many sites in this region, such as Oxkintok, Uxmal, Sayil, and Edzna..." - this firmly places Uxmal in the Late Classic, as does Foster 2002, in her summary of the Late Classic on p. 49 "From Palenque in the west and Copán in the east to Uxmal in the north..." Simon Burchell (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, check out Andrews 1984 - on the political geography of Yucatán - "there is good reason to believe that many of the provinces existed before the founding of Mayapán, in the mid-twelfth century. They may have evolved out of earlier polities of the Classic period." Simon Burchell (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The agents of the Catholic Church" What agents? Not priests?
  • Not necessarily - also monks, converted natives etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • " the capture and humiliation of enemy warriors played an important part in elite culture" Perhaps "the humiliation and execution of captured enemy warriors"
  • It appears that they were not always executed - they could be enslaved, for example, or be forced to switch allegiance. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "There is some evidence from the Classic period that women providing supporting roles in war, but they did not act as military officers with the exception of those rare ruling queens.[159] By the Postclassic, there is some evidence from native chronicles that women occasionally fought in battle.[" Repetition of "some evidence". Also presumably "provided" rather than "providing".
  • "Although the majority of Maya ballcourts date originally to the Classic period" What does "originally" mean here?
  • It means that they the majority don't date as far back as the Preclassic. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the word "originally" is superfluous. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Chenes style is very similar to the Puuc style," If you define it in relation to Puuc, it would be better to list Puuc first.
  • "By about AD 250, the Maya script had adopted a more formalised and consistent writing system.[283]" perhaps "had become a more formalized"
  • "The bar-and-dot counting system that is the base of Maya numerals was in use in Mesoamerica by 1000 BC;[309] the Maya adopted it by the Late Postclassic" Do you mean pre-classic? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops. You are quite right of course. I've fixed it. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. Congratulations on a first-rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, and for your support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Another early German battleship for your consideration. The ship had a fairly uneventful career, and was too old to see much use in World War I. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 18 May 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) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • No DABs.
  • I made a few adjustments to the infobox and the main body. However, there are a lot of missing links in the infobox and a few in the description.
    • Should be good now
  • Move horsepower and boilers to new |ship power= line.
    • Done
      • Engines returned to propulsion line and a few links tweaked.
  • Link overhaul, target ship, guard ship
    • Added
  • Is that the one volume of HRS that only has an ASIN?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • For whatever reason, the last few volumes of HRS aren't in Worldcat. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Why would the Germans use standard displacement since the ship was scrapped before the WNT was written?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Probably was using "standard" as a synonym for "normal", not the technical meaning. Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Don't forget to copy over most of these changes to the other ships in the class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Almost forgot about this, but did somebody change the horsepower unit on you? Was 13,000 ihp, but is now 13,000 PS. Which is correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Yes, see [User_talk:ÄDA_-_DÄP#Recent_edits_to_German_ship_articles here] - in a nutshell, it seems that the English translators for Groener simply changed PS into hp without converting the figures. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
                • Joy, but at least it's not my problem since I only deal with German ships that have nice sensible turbines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Very nice article! The only comment I want to make is regarding the use of the letter "ß" (Eszett). In its native German language the ship is spelled SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Große. I understand that in English sources the ship is spelled SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. I also understand that the article Wiki name therefore should use the English variant. What I am unsure about, does this rule also apply to how the name is spelled within the body of the article? I am asking this because the article makes use of the ß in "Schießpreis" and by referencing the source "Grießmer". This raises my question, if the use of "ß" is ligitimate could the text itself use the correct native spelling variant? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, my sense is that it would be the best option to simply change to Schiesspreis and Griessmer, since it would look odd to have the title one way and the article the other, and there really aren't any good policy-based reasons to use the eszett in the title. Of course I'd be open to arguments to the contrary, but that might be better suited to the article talk page. Thanks for bringing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, with a comment. Are there any better maps? The one used could be smaller if it was remade with some the city names etc were left off, etc. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that I've been able to find, though I like this one in part because it shows contemporary borders. Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I figured that's why you used it. Perhaps a Commons mapper will come along at some point. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Source review -- refs look reliable, just a couple of formatting suggestions:

  • I think you can lose "Vol. 47" for the RUSI Journal -- there's only on RUSI and, for consistency, you don't use volume number for The United Service.
    • I think I'd rather keep it - when I've tried to track down these old journals in Google books for other articles, the volume number is a useful way to find them. And The United Service does have a volume number.
      • Yes, both have volume numbers (per the References section) but in the citations you use the volume in one but not the other -- should be consistent there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, right - probably a legacy from whatever article I copied the citation from, which used more than one volume. Thanks.
  • You could use "Hildebrand et al" instead of "Hildebrand Röhr & Steinmetz" (which without a comma or semicolon after Hildebrand looks more like two authors than the actual three anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think I prefer adding a comma rather than et. al. Thanks for checking these, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No prob. I reviewed prose, structure and content at MilHist ACR and see no other issues after checking changes since then, so happy to support here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Columbian mammoth[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the second-best known species of mammoth (after the woolly one), and being from America, also one of the largest. I have tried to be as comprehensive with the literature and imagery as possible. Some of the text is similar or identical to that in the woolly mammoth FA (mainly in the evolution and dentition sections) as these species have several features in common. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments - I read through this while on a smartphone somewhere out and about. Most of the article reads ok except the lead is clunky in places. will post some queries below:
The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth, the common name for the extinct elephant genus Mammuthus. The Columbian mammoth lived during the Pleistocene epoch, and inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica. --middle bit clunky - would trim to "The Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) was a species of mammoth that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch."
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
NB: best to comment on Calliopejen's edits to let folks know if you're happy with them (she's also left some queries in commented out notes.
And my rejigging of lead, while we're there.
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I'll fix the issues above and those raised during copy edit today. Not sure if Calliopejen1 is completely finished copy editing (dentition, palaeobiology and distribution are largely untouched), but I think the sections she has already finished should be fine for me to edit. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have now addressed all the issues raised during copy-editing. Just notify me if you have further questions, Calliopejen1. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep. ok, looking better...more now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
that inhabited North America as far north as United States and as far south as Costa Rica during the Pleistocene epoch. - do we know approximately where in the U.S.? It's a big place north to south....
As shown on this map[19], it is most of the US. I have added "northern", but not sure if it is enough or is udnerstandable? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
there are alotta mammoths in the first para of Evolution...if we can reduce one or two it'd flow better...
Removed two, better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Apart from their larger size and more "primitive" molars, - why is primitive in quotes here?
Many specimens also accumulated in "natural traps" - ditto
... male mammoths mainly lived alone and were more "adventurous" .. - ditto
supported the "overkill hypothesis" - ditto, especially as unquoted a few lines before.
Removed the quotes mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose - I can't see anything else to fix but I often miss things so will feel happier when some other folks look at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems this is stalling for some reason, should I advertise at relevant Wikiprojects? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Neutrally worded requests for comment at relevant projects is fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I made this section[20] at the animal project, which seems to be the most visited relevant project. Also at the palaeontology project[21], and mammal project[22]. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • In the lead "which entered North America about 1.5 million years ago". I would add from Asia.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference to the Channel Islands will confuse some readers (well it confused me wondering how they got to islands off the coast of France). I would show it as "of California".
I assume you mean in the intro? If so, done. Already in article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "since doubt about its adequacy as a holotype has been raised." Presumably doubts - one doubt would hardly be taken seriously.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pygmy mammoths - maybe mention that they are an example of island dwarfing.
Added in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it known whether there was a land bridge 80,000 years ago - or whether their ancestors might have swum across? Neanderthals crossed a land bridge from Europe to Britain around then so sea levels must have been lower.
Readded explanation that was snipped during copyedit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "of the Columbian mammoth showed that the two examined specimens, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth"" A bit clumsy. How about "of two Columbian mammothss, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth", shows that"
Took your suggestion in slightly modified form. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not clear about this paragraph, probably due to my limited knowledge. If I understand correctly, two Columbian mammoths have the same mitochondria as one sub-clade of wooolly mammoths. This suggests inter-breeding, but is it sufficient on its own to show introgression and dominance rather than genetic drift?
The problem is that only two Columbian specimens have been analysed, so more specimens need to be examined before anything can be safely concluded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am still confused. 1. You say that more specimens need to be examined before anything can be safely concluded, but the article implies that the doubt concerns which species was dominant, and my query was about whether alternative explanations - such as genetic drift, or that the Columbian mammoth and the woolly mammoth sub-clade bot retained the original mitochondria of their common ancestor - can be ruled out. Is it correct that the doubt is which species was dominant? 2. I also do not understand how the results could be explained by the dominance of Columbian males. It would affect the nuclear DNA, but why would it explain "Columbian" mitochondria inherited through females in a sub-clade of woolly mammoths? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I was kind of puzzled by the part myself, here it is, from the open access paper, I've bolded a part I felt may be a bit too specific, but perhaps it is the key: "At present, however, we suspect that hybridization between CMs and WMs may be a more parsimonious explanation for our observations. Under one conception, haplogroup C could have been a predominantly CM haplogroup that introgressed into WM populations, at such a frequency that it came to dominate the North American mitochondrial gene pool of that species. The fact that both CMs sequenced here are haplogroup C would lend some support to this hypothesis. Another possibility is that introgression occurred in the opposite direction, such that WM-typical haplogroup C introgressed into CM populations (Figure ​(Figure2a).2a). From a behavioral perspective, this configuration is perhaps more likely, especially in light of phenomena documented in extant African forest (Loxodonta cyclotis) and savanna (L. africana) elephants (Figure ​(Figure2b).2b). These living species are morphologically distinct and deeply divergent at many nuclear loci [32-35], but are known to interbreed at forest-savanna ecotones [36,37]. The result is 'cytonuclear dissociation' [38] between genomes in hybrid individuals, such that forest-typical mitochondrial haplotypes occur at low frequency in savanna populations. Hypothetically, this is driven by savanna males reproductively out-competing physically smaller forest males [38], producing unidirectional backcrossing of hybrid females into savanna populations. Since mammoths were probably very similar to modern elephants in social and reproductive behavior [4,27], it is conceivable that WMs and the physically larger CMs engaged in a similar dynamic when they encountered each other." [23] FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The paper is very tentative - "At present, however, we suspect", "may be a more parsimonious explanation", "could have been". It was also apparently immediately questioned, although I do not have access to the commentary you cite at ref 13. These speculations seem to me too indefinite and tentative to justify the detailed account (and somewhat more definite language) in the article. I would suggest shortening it drastically to something like "A 2011 study of the complete mitochondrial genome (inherited through the female line) showed that two examined Columbian mammoths, including the morphologically typical "Huntington mammoth", were grouped within a subclade of woolly mammoths. One possible explanation is introgression of a haplogroup from woolly to Columbian mammoths, or vice versa, as a result of interbreeding. The authors of the study also suggest that the North American form sometimes referred to as M. jeffersonii may have been a hybrid between the two species, as it is morphologically intermediate.[12] These findings were not expected by scientists, nuclear DNA and more specimens will have to be analysed to clarify the situation." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Took your suggestion, but kept a short part about the modern analogues, and that the offspring were fertile. These two issues are not questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for comments! All should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments

  • There are several early 20C pictures by Charles R. Knight and others. Comments, maybe in the captions, about how accurate they are would be helpful.
Interesting suggestion. These images have actually been used in some modern contexts, a line drawing copy of the Knight image is used as an icon in the 2007 Lister book, and I believe I saw the Horsfall image used in the Nova documentary linked at the bottom of the article. We had some newer, usermade restorations on Commons, but these lacked fur almost entirely, which is inconsistent with the cave fur mentioned in the text, and this is also why I used those old illustrations instead, as they do show some fur. Modern restorations, like these[24][25], vary wildly on the extent of the fur, so the age of the images in the article doesn't really affect their accuracy. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the captions that the extent of the fur is hypothetical. Another thing that could be noted is that both restorations are based on the AMNH specimen with the crossed tusks, shown under evolution. This was originally considered a Columbian mammoth, and is so today, but for some part of the 20th century it was suggested to be a distinct species. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • " It was larger than the modern African elephant and the woolly mammoth, both of which reached about 2.7 to 3.4 m (9–11 ft), and was about the same size as the earlier mammoth species M. meridionalis and M. trogontherii." Presumably Columbian not woolly mammoth the same size as earlier species, but it is not entirely clear. "It was about the same size as the earlier mammoth species M. meridionalis and M. trogontherii, and was larger than the modern African elephant and the woolly mammoth, both of which reached about 2.7 to 3.4 m (9–11 ft)." would be eliminate any ambiguity.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • mandibular symphysis could be linked.
It is mentioned twice under description, and linked at first occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I was puzzled why tusks are in the dentition section until I saw in the article on elephants that tusks are modified teeth. Perhaps worth explaining?
Noted in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mammoths may have formed herds more often than modern elephants, since animals living in open areas are more likely to herd than those in forested areas." But some elephants live in deserts and grasslands.
True, I forgot to add "large" before herd, because all elephants of course form herds. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tusk growth slowed when foraging became more difficult, such as during illness or when a male mammoth was banished from the herd.[" But you say above that males were solitary.
Until elephant males reach a certain age, they do live with the herd. The source mentions this in another section, so have added that fact. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The earliest evidence of mammoth-butchering dates from 21,500 to 22,000 years ago." How solid is this date? Aren't claims of human occupation of the Americas this early highly controversial?
Added "suggested evidence", is that enough? FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You say that the Columbian mammoth evolved from M. trogontherii which entered north America 1.5 million years ago, but unless I have missed it you do not say when the Columbian is thought to have evolved.
None of the sources I could find state it, annoyingly. I guess it is because most of the old remains are fragmentary, mainly consisting of molars, and since the two species had a similar number of molar ridges, it should be hard to point down when the transition happened. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No change needed but I think there is a great deal of special pleading in denials that humans were responsible for extinctions of megafauna. Apparently all over the world they survived all that climate threw at them for hundreds of thousands of years and then coincidentally disappeared as a result of climate change just when humans reached to area.
Yeah, climate change certainly didn't help, but I doubt it was the sole cause either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, all suggestions should be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. I think a sentence or two in the taxonomy section or the captions on the accuracy of the early 20C images (in addition to the one on fur) would be helpful, but this is a minor point and the article is first rate.

Thanks, yeah, I think more research will be done on those specimens in the coming years anyway, that will give us more reliable information to add about them.... FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general, the article looks good. A few points:-

  • "Several sites contain the skeletons of multiple Columbian mammoths, either as the result of single incidents such as flash floods or natural traps in which individuals accumulated over time." - This sentence is a bit awkward; I would have preferred "a single incident such as a flash flood"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is their closest extant relative." - This is ambiguous because the previous sentence is about the mastodon.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The cladogram shows the Asian elephant and the Columbian mammoth, but what about the other mammoth species?
That's all which was included in the original paper... But the text explains the interrelatedness of the rest of them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "They are therefore considered the distinct species M. exilis, the pygmy mammoth (or a subspecies, M. c. exilis)." - This sentence could usefully add "to be".
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The best indication of sex is the size of the pelvis, since the birth canal is always wider in females than in males." - You have birth canal wikilinked to "vagina", and I think this sentence needs rephrasing.
Removed the link, the redirect was too specific. How should it be restructured? FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You could just replace "the birth canal" with "it" (ie the pelvis). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be too broad, as osteologically, the birth canal is the opening in the pelvis where young pass through, but we don't seem to have an article about that specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Males cannot give birth so they do not have birth canals. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it also appears to be a bit inconsistent, but the opening is "used" as birth canal for females, as stated on Britannica: "The ring made by the pelvic girdle functions as the birth canal in females."[26] So well, the cited source uses the term for both males and females in parts: "Because this bone contains the birth canal through which baby mammoths were born, its shape differs clearly between males and females. In the female, the birth canal is relatively wider, and the bone surrounding it, the illium, is proportionately narrow. In males, conversely, the equivalent hole is narrower and the illium wider. Measurement of a series of skeletons has shown that the ratio of canal width to illium width is always higher in females than in males." So I've now changed the text to: "The best indication of sex is the size of the pelvic girdle, since the passage that functions as the birth canal is always wider in females than in males". FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thay's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In which part of the skeleton is the rostrum?
Specified further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Annual tusk growth of 2.5–15 cm (0.98–5.91 in) continued throughout life" - This conversion factor is too precise.
Fixed, conversion template removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "the third were 15 cm (6 in) 15 cm (5.9 in) long" - some duplication here.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Growing 180.9 mm of ridge took about 10.6 years." - Could use cm instead of mm, round to 18 cm and provide imperial equivalent.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Columbian mammoths had four functional molar teeth at a time, two in the upper jaw and two in the lower" - Does this mean a total of four molars? What was their dental formula?
Yes, like modern elephants, two in the upper jaw and two in the lower (can be seen in the photos under dentition and diet). Not sure about the exact dental formula, though, if you mean what each molar "number" each of them corresponds to. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the molars are impressive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The dung consists of 95 percent grass and sedge, with 0-25 percent woody plants between boluses (including saltbush, sagebrush, water birch and blue spruce)." - I don't understand this sentence.
Will it make more sense if I add "varying from 0 to 25 between boluses"?FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand what you are getting at now, but you can't really start with 95% grasses and sedges, and then continue with your other information, because the percentage figures should add up to 100%. Do you really mean boluses or are you referring to droppings? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A bolus is an individual, err, "ball" of dung. The percentage inconsistency is of course weird, but the source says: "Bechan mammoth dung ... comprises 95 per cent grass and sedge by weight. Woody plants also occurred, in quantities varying from zero to 25 per cent between boluses". FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A bolus is "a small rounded mass of a substance, especially of chewed food at the moment of swallowing" and I don't think the word is used for dung. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it would appear our article is inadequate, as several modern elephant papers mention "dung boluses":[27][28][29] So maybe I should just add "dung" in front of bolus here? The book source I used only says "bolus". FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That would satisfy me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, both this and the stuff about the birth canal have been added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! All should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now supporting on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Image review: All good, expect for File:Columbian mammoth petroglyphs.jpg which is copyrighted. LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree on that point, LittleJerry, but I feel there are other significant issues with the images. – Maky « talk » 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
See below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

(edit conflict) There are a few issues, which I've listed below.

  • For File:Mammuthus columbi molar.jpg, I suggest trying to find information about birth and death dates of the artist / lithographer... which I know can be challenging. It took a little while, but I found "Austrian-born Joseph Dinkel (c.1806-1891)" in an interesting article by The Geological Society. This also changes the license to PD-old-100. Also, be sure to add the template marking the description as English so that this doesn't appear at the top of the page: "This image does not appear to have a description in your interface language. Please add one!" This goes for all of the images in the article.
Added death info. I don't get the language note, and I have never heard of that being a requirement for FAC. So I don't think it is necessary, is more of a local Commons standardisation thing. I'd certainly have to get some more confirmation for this being a criterion before going over the task. You can probably turn the notification off in your preferences. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The language thing is not required for FAC as far as I know, but it does add a professional element to the image documentation, as do proper headings for the Summary and Licensing. It helps readers from other Wikis know what language the description is in, and if multiple translations of the description are given, it helps them quickly find their language. File:Pygmy_mammoth.JPG is an example. I'll add it to the images for you since it's no biggie. Here's the diff in case you're not familiar with the template. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for adding the template then! Images in these articles are replaced so often that paying attention to details not covered in the FAC criteria often end up being in vain. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In regards to the death dates of the artists, per Commons:Creator: "date of death and nationality is also important for verifying validity [of licenses]". I went ahead and created Creator templates for each of these artists and added the templates to the Summary boxes. Mandatory for FAC? No. Should it be? IMO, yes. – Maky « talk » 21:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a very minor issue, but please also clean up the descriptions and anything else for the images used. For example, File:Columbian Mammoth - Front View (Florida).jpg could be simplified to use the link only rather than say "More information about this species:".
Removed the text, was on the original Flickr page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Again, nitpicking, but I feel the media of a featured article should have descriptions (in addition to sourcing and licensing) that matches the quality of the article. Just a pet peeve of mine. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Added dates. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Elephantidae-scale.svg needs sources for these numbers. Under "Source", "Own work" is fine for the image, but it should also include the sources for the data.
I have notified the author[30], if nothing comes of it, I'll crosscheck with sources myself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Mike.BRZ, who has commented on such scale images in the past, perhaps he knows where to cross check and verify the image? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the biggest Stegodon mount I was able to find information on [Link], seems that the 4m tall claim is rounded from that, maybe accounting for the flesh but imo is important to note that in life, the scapulae even in standing position, extend beyond the neural spines (Osborn 1942, Larramendi 2014) therefore the shoulders are too low in the ribcage and its true skeletal shoulder height would be about 3.5m. As for the Columbian mammoth, Osborn (1942) puts the skeletal shoulder height of "Archidiskodon imperator maibeni" Nebraska Museum 5-9-22 AKA Archie, at 383cm and estimated flesh shoulder height of 407cm. I've got nothing at hand about Gomphotherium though. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Lister 2007 states 4 m for the Columbian mammoth though, so that one would be fine, I guess. I guess the modern elephants are within range? FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes but I don't know if it'll be an apples to apples comparison, the Asian elephant appears to be 2.5m at the shoulder (contra the description) and the African one is 3m, those are not the sizes of full grown males while Columbian mammoth at 4m and Stegodon at 3.5m are for the largest specimens. Mike.BRZ (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you think this image is better/easier to verify?[31] FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In that size chart, assuming the human is 1.8m tall, M. trogontherii is 4.8m, M. meridionalis is 4.6m, M. columbi is 4.4m, M. primigenius is 3m and M. exilis is 1.5m.
  • M. trogontherii, you might find a mention of a supposedly 5m tall specimen (Garutt & Nikoloskaya, 1988) but is an extrapolation based on an skeleton, again, mounted with the shoulders too low in the torso, the best estimate for that specimen is that of Osborn (1942) at 4.5m in the flesh and that is to this day the largest specimen found however average height of a full grown male appears to be around ~3.9m in the flesh (Larramendi, 2014).
  • M. meridionalis, according to Osborn (1942) the largest specimen is the one in the Paris museum with an skeletal shoulder height of 3.5m, 3.7m in the flesh, Gaudry (1893) gives an skeletal shoulder height of 3.8m for the same specimen and Christiansen (2004) repeats it but this is once again a measurement to the top of the neural spines in a mount with the shoulders too low in the torso.
  • M. columbi, we already talked about this one, 4m is accurate for the largest specimen.
  • M. primigenius, this is tricky because there seems to be geographical size variation with those from the Siberian tundra being the smallest and some specimens ascribed to it might be M. trogontherii but Osborn (1942) gives a height of 3m while Christiansen (2004) mentions two mounted skeletons about 3.2m tall.
  • M. exilis, Agenbroad (2009) estimates an average of 1.7m for M. exilis and a max of 1.9m.
And the silhouettes are not very accurate for mammoths, they seem too Asian elephant-like. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Could seem like a comparison should be made from scratch? I have an issue with the current image actually, which is that no source is provided for the silhouettes. In fact, after a quick Google search for Stegodon, it seems the silhouette is based on this image:[32] So I've now nominated it for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm now cutting out some new silhouettes from free images on Commons, but I'll probably need some help for cross-checking and finding references. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you say the scapula would had extended above the neutral spines in life, Mike.BRZ? Here's a preliminary version, based on thenumbers in Lister 2007, all the big ones are given as 4 m:[33] Based on these free images:[34][35][36][37] I made the M. exilis outline myself after a skeleton, probably needs more belly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the scapula is the tallest point of the shoulders in a proboscidean, I think M. exilis looks fine, that size chart is much better. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool, I've now replaced it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks for all the work. I've tweaked the summary box a bit, too. However, as User:Crisco 1492 once pointed out on one of my FACs: "A JPG will display better [compared to a PNG] in the article (has to do with how MediaWiki downsamples)." If you decide to create a JPG version, here's an example of the image I had to create a JPG for, complete with template examples, etc.: File:Katzenmaki (Chirogaleus_furcifer).png – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be pretty easy for me to do a jpg version, though the reason I used png is the "warning" template someone added here[38], and because it allows for transparent background. Not that the latter feature adds much... Thanks for the cool stuff on the image page, and of course thanks to Mike for the detailed responses. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, technically an image like this should be a SVG... but due to its content, I'm not sure how to best convert it (or create that way in the first place). Honestly, I'd say you're fine unless someone complains. – Maky « talk » 00:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, not much of a vector guy myself, so maybe someone else will do it, also why I made sure that none of the shapes overlapped, so it would be easier for others to edit the image. By the way, am I the only one who doesn't see any image when I go to the file page? FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a server-side issue. I'm seeing that, too. It usually resolves itself in a day or two. – Maky « talk » 01:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Socoaststatebeachterracemammothrocks.jpg needs to go through Commons:OTRS. Simply saying "written permission has been received from the photographer to licence this image via "share-and-share-alike vers 2.5" Anlace 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)" is not enough. They will need you to send a copy of the correspondence, and hopefully it meets all the legal guidelines. Once things are adequately documented, they will archive the information in case of a legal dispute. Sorry, but this is not optional.
I was thinking the same, though it has passed DYK and been on the front page without problems. I'll now ping the uploader Anlace, so the email correspondence can be provided. Also noted on talk page:[39] I have temporarily added this photo of some of the same rocks instead:[40] FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Just because it passes somewhere else (particularly DYK), doesn't mean it's golden. FAC is the final check. Hopefully we can get this one resolved. It's a nice photo. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If the uploader doesn't reply, I guess it'll have to be nominated for deletion, if the photographer can't otherwise be reached. The replacement image is fine enough for me (borders will be cropped), and I'm sure better free images will be found in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort and for replacing it. The replacement image is good and checks out. I've flagged the old image as needing OTRS approval, and you've given the uploader notice. If nothing is done in the next couple of weeks, it will be deleted. – Maky « talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be made into a regular deletion request, to buy it more time? I could imagine others would want to make an effort to save it if they saw it there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to change it to a regular deletion request, go for it. I just marked it so it wouldn't slip through the cracks and sit there unquestioned for another 5 to 10 years. – Maky « talk » 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Added dates. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Waco mammoth site W.jpg ... This one confused me for a minute. Apparently Nv8200pa is Larry D. Moore. Regardless, the infobox is contradictory. When the source says "© 2013 Larry D. Moore" and the license is CC BY-SA 3.0, something's not right. I suggest asking Larry to clarify this. Also, for the "Author" field, I suggest including his Wiki username for clarity. When I first looked at it, I thought it was another OTRS case since his Commons account makes no mention of who he is.
Dual licenses are allowed on Commons[41], if the © is of concern. Note that Larry D. Moore links to Nv8200pa under author, so it is the same person. I've added that to make it more clear. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I spoke to some people on the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel, and we fixed this summary box up. The uploader should have used {{own}}, so we removed the username from the Author field and changed source to that template. Apparently the {{own}} template has "native" support for multi-licensing. It should be good now. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I moved it from the Description to the Source, though. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:A Mammoth Hunt.jpg, date is given "17 March 2013, 17:53:36" yet claims PD-US. Also, "John Steeple Davis (1844-1917)" found here. It would also be nice if the pink could be edited out.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Columbian mammoth petroglyphs.jpg, the sources says "Artwork: © Rob Ciaccio" and comes from a 2011 paper, yet the license is PD-old-70-1923? I'm not an expert on tracings, so I'm not sure if this can be used.
Exact tracings of PD work cannot be copyrighted, as they are merely derivative works.[42] "Replicas of artworks: Exact replicas of public domain works, like tourist souvenirs of the Venus de Milo, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself." The site also has the following, which I don't think applies, as this is not a photo: "Cave paintings: Cave walls are usually not flat, but three-dimensional. The same goes for antique vases and other uneven or rough surfaces. This could mean that photographs of such media can be copyrighted, even if the cave painting is in the public domain. (We are looking for case studies here!) Old frescoes and other PD paintings on flat surfaces should be fine, as long as they are reproduced as two-dimensional artworks." FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If you're right, PD-old-70-1923 isn't the right license. It would be either {{PD-scan}} and {{PD-art}}. However, the PDF source claims it's a "drawing" by the author. In other words, this is a borderline case. I took the issue to the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel, and the two people I spoke to agreed that it was very sketchy (no pun intended). Both felt the image should be removed. I think the best thing to do is discuss it at the Commons Village Pump and remove it until the matter is resolved. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, whether it's a tracing or freehand drawing doesn't really change the fact that it's clearly a derivative work of PD art with no original input. I'll bring it up at the pump. Here's the discussion:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If it doesn't fly, I'll do my own tracing, if allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That may be the best route to go. I'm sure you're allowed to trace it and release the image. The question is whether you need to release the image, or whether it's automatically in the public domain. – Maky « talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've now replaced it with my own tracing. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That looks good to me! – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In general, there might be too many images in the article. That's just my opinion though, and I'd want the opinion of other reviewers. For example, there are three illustrations of their molars, which seems a bit much.
The images that show molars also serve other functions (they have been carefully chosen for this reason). The first one shows the holotype specimen (which just happens to be a molar) and gives historical context, the second shows a lower jaw as well as lahar preservation (now noted in caption), and the last shows the underside of a tar pit skull under preparation. Subjects not shown in any other of the images. Furthermore, showing lower and upper molars in place in either the mandible or skull is not really interchangeable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. There's no hard limit to the number of images an article can have, so I can't hold things up over this. Looking again, I guess it's fine. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You probably know I'm a bit picky about image captions. Although I'm perfectly fine with noting in the caption the excavation site at which the photo was taken, I really dislike naming the museum (or zoo) where specimen photos were taken. If the reader wants that information, they should go to the image description. Otherwise it feels like advertising... and in fact, some people (not you) put their photos on Wikipedia to highlight their personal travels or bring attention to their local attractions. Again, that's just my pet peeve. You're welcome to discuss.
I personally disagree, noting the museum hints at the context and history of a specimen. Many of the specimens are rather famous (Huntington, AMNH, the Page Museum specimen, etc.), some have been exhibited at the respective museums for over a century, so their institution is part of their "identity", just like other museum objects. Very different from living zoo animals in this respect, I think, which are often moved between zoos for breeding purposes, and are therefore not especially connected to any of them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point, though there are a few zoo animals that stay put. I'm not entirely convinced, but in this case I'm fine with the museum fossils. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise things look pretty good. Once these issues are fixed, I'll add my support. – Maky « talk » 01:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (by far the most detailed image review I've ever seen), all should be addressed, apart from two issues that await response from the original uploaders. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry for the extra work. And sorry for the additional item (below). I've been put through a rough image review or two, and I learned a lot for it. (And I'm still learning!) Good points were made, particularly about sourcing and licensing, and I feel they should definitely be requirements at FAC. (I believe they all are.) Fixing up the descriptions is a pet peeve, as explained above. But most of what I pointed out either directly or indirectly dealt with licensing and/or sourcing... as does my next point. (Also, I just had another major edit conflict. Hopefully I haven't missed anything you were adding while I was replying.)
  • For all the old art (PD-US, etc.), can you please convert the sources from raw links to proper citations with the link(s) wrapped around it? To ensure you have the right license (e.g. PD-US, PD-1923, etc.), we need to know when and where these books were published. (The best way to show this is in a proper citation.) For example, if one were published in the UK in 1921, the image might be usable in the US, but not in other countries. This is part of the reason why I think we should have death dates on the artists—to show we've carefully reviewed the image and determined it's proper license.
Should now be done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, File:Columbian mammoth.jpg needs verification of the 1909 date. The source cites if from 1942, and the other page doesn't seem to give the copyright date. – Maky « talk » 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The painting itself has 1909 written in the lower corner, and the caption by Osborn on that page states it was painted under his supervision in 1909. If that is not enough I can search for other sources. Knight made several small paintings for the AMNH in the late 19th and early 20th century. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't notice the date in the corner, and to be honest, I can barely read it. Please note in the information box (next to the date in parentheses) the source of that 1909 date, and then I think you'll be good.
1909 now links to the same page as what is under source, where this info is found. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Technically the license was wrong, so I got some help on the IRC channel again, and we fixed it. You should be good now. – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

After this and the three lingering issues, all should be good to go. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I guess we can only wait for answers from the two uploaders and the villagepump. Have to wait for the source review too anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like matters are resolving themselves. It looks like you're going to have to do your own tracing, and it seems you're getting lots of good discussion about the size comparison graphic. I'm sure this will all wrap up soon. Sorry for dragging it out. – Maky « talk » 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It's alright, I think this needs a fourth support following another article review perhaps, and of course the source review, so it's not necessarily the image review that's holding it back at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Support – As long as the sources and text check out, based on the images I give my support for this article. Good job! – Maky « talk » 00:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help! FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz CLR[edit]

Nominator(s): The359 (Talk) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Renominating as this candidate received no input before being archived.

This article is about a series of race cars which suffered unusual accidents in their one and only race and have become part of the history of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and motorsport in general as a famous failure. They are often very well recognized through video and pictures of the accidents, but not well understood. Mercedes-Benz effectively forgot about these cars in the years since but one has reappeared in recent years. The359 (Talk) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I am sorry that you have had to wait so long for review attention. At one time I used to patrol the FAC page for instances of neglect and would attempt to get the review kick-started. I don't have much time to do that now, but I certainly think you have waited long enough. Here are some comments on the first half of the article – I'll complete the review later.

  • "sport cars" → "sports cars"
  • "campaigned by Mercedes" – I'm not sure what this means, but creating verbs for nouns in this way makes for ghastly prose. Do you mean "promoted"?
  • "Three CLRs were entered for Le Mans..." State the year here.
  • " the drivers were given strict instructions to avoid the instabilities". These instabilities are previously mentioned as "aerodynamic instabilities", which sounds like a design issue rather than a driver's problem. What was he nature of the "strict instructions"?
  • "These incidents..." would be better as "This and earlier incidents..."
  • The remainder of this sentence is tortuously phrased: I suggest "... led Mercedes not only to withdraw its remaining car from the event immediately, but also to cancel..." etc
  • Three cars, ten "notable drivers" listed in the infobox. Did all of them actually get to drive one of the three cars?
  • "a street legal production car" = jargon. Please say in plain English what you mean
  • "refined the CLK GTR platform..." Sorry, but you should be writing for a readership which may lack familiarity with technical expressions. What does "platform" mean in this context?
  • You should open the section by specifically stating that the CLR was developed for the LMGTP category.
  • Rather than using legal terms like "divested" (albeit linked), why not state plainly what happened to the company?
  • "shared its lower half from..." You don't "share from". I think "derived from" is what you want.
  • Is there a link you can provide for "powerplant"?
  • "21,735 mi (34,979 km) had been covered by CLRs" should be recast in active voice: "the CLRs had covered 21,735 mi (34,979 km)"
1999 season
  • I'd reconsider this section title, which is really about plans and personnel rather than the events of the season.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

...and the rest of my comments:

Practice and qualifying
  • (first line): Redundant wording: "to be allowed to enter the race proper." This is implicit from the earlier part of the sentence. You repeat the same information later on, in "would have to qualify for the race on their lap times".
  • Strange choice of words: "efforts" and "programmes"?
  • Why was the No. 4 CLR involved in prequalifying when it had an automatic entry?
  • I'm getting a little confused. You said earlier that cars "were required to pass through pre-qualifying to be allowed to enter the race proper". But you now say: "Mercedes' three cars were allowed to participate in two days of practice and qualifying in the week leading up to the race in June". So was there further qualifying? (Later): from reading on, I gather that the next "qualifying" session was to determine grid positions; it may be worth clarifying this.
  • "to prepare a pass" is a bit jargony. Why not "to overtake"?
  • I'd delete the unneceaary words " further up the circuit".
  • As a general point, I notice that the formulation "due to" occurs several times in the article. It's one of those phrases that tends to jar with repetition, and it may be worth weeding out one or two.
  • The phrase "The CLR was swarmed by marshals" is a bit tabloidish, and I'm not sure it makes sense anyway; suggest rephrase
  • "instructed to not follow" → "instructed not to follow"

Quite a gripping account, with just a few quibbles:

  • "Mercedes took the race start from the fourth and seventh place grid positions" – why so convoluted? Why not: "Mercedes started the race from the fourth and seventh place grid positions"?
  • "while Bouchut followed in fourth" – better to say he gained two places to achieve fourth position.
  • Why did Schneider not achieve first place when the two Toyotas pit-stopped, since he was in third place behind them?
  • "A Porsche 911 GT1, similar in design to the CLR, suffered a nearly identical accident the year before at Road Atlanta" – needs a "had" before "suffered"
  • "canceled" – my impression is that you are using British spellings, e.g. "programme"
  • "from 2000 onward" → "from 2000 onwards"

Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries on the wait, it's my first FAC so I come with no expectations of a timetable, when it's done it's done.
I've tackled all of the easy bits you listed. I'm not sure if my section title is any better than the one I had before, I'm struggling to think of something more appropriate. I also am not sure where you see ten drivers in the infobox, there are only nine and they are the nine race drivers who all drove the car in practice and qualifying. There was a tenth reserve and test driver listed in the prose but he is not listed in the infobox.
The explanation on pre-qualifying, practice, and qualifying is a bit convoluted, it's been difficult to put it into words. Effectively, in January or so the ACO announces guaranteed entries, previous winners and champions from outside racing series who can participate in the race. Then the ACO receives applications for entry from teams, which always outnumbers the number of spots available in the race (48 at that time). Pre-qualifying is held at the track for a day to whittle down the field to the best applicants, plus the guaranteed entries. However, since Le Mans is a temporary street circuit, you can't test there on your own, so guaranteed entries participate solely to gain testing knowledge on the circuit itself, something that can't be replicated elsewhere. Two weeks later, the 48 cars are allowed two days of sessions (Wednesday and Thursday) which are termed qualifying but effectively can be used for any purpose the teams want. The qualifying grid is determined from the fastest lap over those two days, but the teams have eight hours of track time over those days, so they are used for practice and qualifying at the same time. Besides the brief warm-up on the morning of the start of the race on Saturday, those are the only periods of track time the teams get in the week leading up to the race. This is an unusual procedure for most racing which follows a practice sessions-qualifying session-race format.
The use of the word programme is typical of racing, similar to Space Shuttle program. Here is an article on testing for this year's Le Mans which mentions teams having a programme. I have however removed the word effort from the article. The359 (Talk) 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your responses. As I am pretty ignorant of motor racing, I think I'll let a more knowledgeable editor look at the text to determine what further work needs to be done. Ignore my miscounting in the infobox. My impression is that the article is fairly close to FA standard and should get there with just a little more work, but I'll defer making a declaration pending the views of more expert eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article. It might take me a day or two to complete the review.

  • "the design of the CLR's bodywork was pushed much lower to produce less drag": I think this needs to be rephrased. The design wasn't pushed lower; the design was changed so that the bodywork was pushed lower.
  • "Racing partner AMG were": I know in British English (which I assume this article is in) companies are plural, so "AMG were" is correct. Does that mean that it should be "racing partners", not "partner"? I've been out of the UK for so long I can't remember what would sound right in Britain, so please leave this as is if it seems OK to you.
  • "The race was won by the Mercedes' FIA GT rivals Porsche": why "the Mercedes'"?
  • Suggest linking to sprint car racing at the first mention of sprint races.
  • "Mercedes had earned a single guaranteed entry for Le Mans by winning the 1998 FIA GT Championship, which was utilized by Gounon, Tiemann, and Webber in CLR No. 4": suggest rephrasing to bring "entry" closer to the "which" which refers to it. Perhaps "By winning the 1998 FIA GT Championship, Mercedes had earned a single guaranteed entry for Le Mans, which was utilized by Gounon, Tiemann, and Webber in CLR No. 4." I'm also not crazy about "utilized". How about "which was assigned to", since the team that used the entry presumably did not make the decision themselves?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made changes thus far, but the sprint car racing you link to is not the sprint racing the article refers to. Sprint in this usage is simply to imply an opposite of endurance racing (motorsport). In other words, a race with a length similar to that of a Formula One Grand Prix, or roughly 2 hours, as opposed to the 24 hours for Le Mans. Sprint car racing is entirely different format of motorsport unrelated to sports car racing. There is no real link I can provide for sprint in this context as it is simply a non-endurance race. The359 (Talk) 17:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note, I have added or refined several sentences in the article based on an interview with one of the CLR drivers that was published today, so you may have to go back and reread these alterations. The changes are here. The359 (Talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
All struck except the comment about sprint car racing; I take your point that the link is wrong, but perhaps a footnote could give the explanation you gave me here? More comments tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
For the ease of understanding, I have removed the word sprint. I have noted that the Petit Le Mans is an endurance, and the Laguna Seca and Las Vegas races are shorter. Hopefully this makes everything much simpler. The359 (Talk) 04:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A few more comments. I'll try to spotcheck some sources tonight.

  • "HWA GmbH, the motorsports division of AMG, which later became an independent company in 1999": "later" is redundant since you also give the date. How about "HWA GmbH, the motorsports division of AMG, which became an independent company the following year"?
  • Suggest linking CL-Class.
  • "Displacement was increased from 5.0 L (310 cu in) to 5.7 L (350 cu in) to compensate for the new air restrictor limitations in the LMGTP category,[3] and allowed the motor to produce approximately 600 bhp (450 kW; 610 PS)." The conjunction shouldn't be "and allowed"; if the increase in displacement is the primary cause of the increased power, I'd make it "which allowed"; if there were other reasons for the power increase I'd suggest a period and a couple more explanatory words to introduce the revised power numbers.
  • "nearly 9.1 m (30 ft)": the source actually says "at least 30 ft", so I think this needs to be rephrased. Also it's clear that the accuracy of that figure is no better than within two or three feet, so the decimal point on the metric figure seems unnecessary.
  • "continued on unhindered": "continued on" is redundant. How about "continued apparently unharmed" or "continued with no apparent damage"? I see from the "aftermath" section that there may well have been damage, so it might be worth using a phrase like "no apparent damage" to cue the reader for the later comment. Or if, as is probably more likely, there was indeed damage that was apparent to the team, but it was thought to be insignificant, we could say something like "was able to continue to race"?
  • "Mercedes-Benz immediately addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions before the race had concluded": "immediately" is unnecessary with "before the race had concluded", but I can see why you want it there. How about "Before the race concluded, Mercedes-Benz addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions", or perhaps "Mercedes-Benz immediately (before the race concluded) addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions"?
  • "Although no conclusion was made by Mercedes": what does "made" mean? Do you mean they published no conclusions, or were they unable to reach a conclusion?
  • I think a couple of the external links could be cut -- the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport link seems reasonable, but why are the others relevant to this article?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed most of the points except linking CL-Class as it is linked in the introduction. Are you suggesting linking it again or did you miss this first mention? See my comments below for addressing the See Also section. The359 (Talk) 16:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
OK on all the above; I did miss the initial link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Last comment:

  • The first three sentences of the "Preparation" section are unsourced; the next footnote only sources information about Dumbreck.

Once that's fixed I'm ready to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Alongside the Dumbreck source I have added specific sources for Lagorce, Lamy, and Heidfeld as the other newcomers to the team to cover their previous racing career, with a single source for the five retained drivers. The359 (Talk) 17:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. A note to the FAC coordinators: I found a couple of minor issues in spotchecking the sources, so it might be good to ask someone to do a little more spotchecking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

I know very little about cars but might be a good judge of accessible prose as a moto-neophyte. I'll make striaghtforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The new cars, known as the CLK GTR, were designed for use both as a racing car and a road car available to the public as part of the series' regulations. - subject goes plural, singular, plural verb then singular noun. Can we use a collective noun ("set", "cohort" or something) for the "cars" as this will make it read better..?
  • I'd link 'transmission'
  • Do we need the See also items - if they are relevant enough, they should be covered in the body of the text surely...and if not, then aren't they a bit tangential to the topic?

Otherwise, reads well so on target for FA status I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected the sentence to make everything plural, as it should be, so hopefully it makes more sense now.
Regarding the See Also section, I have removed two of the links. Mercedes-Benz in motorsport is difficult to work into the article as it is the 100+ year history of Mercedes in motorsports, so there is no really relevant link for it in the article as is. I'd consider it similar to a portal link. 1955 Le Mans disaster is relevant as it involves a similar accident at Le Mans in which a Mercedes left the track, killed a lot of spectators, and Mercedes immediately withdrew their cars and stopped racing at Le Mans for several decades. I'd consider it similar to a See Also section on an aircraft accident linking to similar accidents. The359 (Talk) 16:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, every so often there are some that are tricky to shoehorn in yet do benefit from a link, ok support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: I believe that this article is worthy of a promotion to FA. The article is very well written and comprehensive in my opinion. Z105space (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • I know next to nothing about cars and racing, so I'll contribute with an image review. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of the photos are appropriately sourced and licensed Flickr uploads. However, this diagram could need a source for the information presented, as well as being uploaded to Commons: FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is a derivative of File:Circuitdelasarthe.svg, a public domain image. I don't deal with many derivative works so I'm not sure how exactly to lay that out. The359 (Talk) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh I was thinking more about the information conveyed, not the image itself as such. What information is the accident mark based on? And the map of the circuit? FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. The marks are based on a combination of videos and pictures and accounts in some of the article sourcing. Should I be citing the location of the accidents in the blurb on the thumbnail or on the description of the upload? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the map of the circuit though?The359 (Talk) 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
On the upload page is fine, then the information can be found from wherever the image is linked. As for the circuit, I mean the map itself. Is it based on a published map, and which? FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
As I did not create the original map, I'm not 100% positive, but I believe the maps used throughout motorsport articles on Wikipedia are all simply drawn from Google Maps or similar satellite images of the circuits. The359 (Talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's ping the original uploader, AlexJ. Seems he hasn't edited since 2013, so I guess it is ok for now, as long as sources for the crash area are added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded the image to Commons and have basic links to articles that describe the location, although I'm not sure how to cite sourcing on Commons as one would do on Wikipedia. Some of the referencing comes from simple videos and pictures of where the accidents took place and being able to identify where they are on the circuit. The359 (Talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If the source is a link, you can just link it like this[44] on Commons. Some might consider the method of marking the accident on the image as "original research", but remember, that is allowed for self-made diagrams and photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is now sourced then. The359 (Talk) 15:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (recusing coordinator duties) - I apologize for dropping substantial critical commentary on a nomination so far into the process, but I found this to be dense, difficult to read, and awkwardly written. I am moderately familiar with motorsports and I found lots of turns of phrase that are strange to me. I also found things that don't make sense in the given context. I'll try to provide some examples below, but I think this needs a thorough copy-edit by someone fresh who is also familiar with the topic matter.

  • "Designed for ... regulations" just doesn't read well. We would normally write "to meet regulations" or similar.
  • "most notably at the 24 Hours of Le Mans" What causes you to write that? I've read through a couple of times and I'm having trouble picking out where that statement is supported in the body of the article.
  • "The CLR's bodywork was much lower in height" Unclear and imprecise. Less space between the body and the ground, or shorter overall?
  • The word "numerous" is used twice in the lead. I find it to be an unnecessarily vague term, considering the exact numbers are known. Numerous races could be 10 or 100—why leave it to the imagination?
  • "Three CLRs were entered ... after performing nearly 22,000 mi (35,000 km) of testing" This seems like non-standard writing. Cars don't perform testing.
  • "requiring a lengthy rebuild" Lengthy means what in this context? Comprehensive, or taking a long time? Either way, it's cloudy.
  • "The new cars, known as CLK GTRs, were designed for use both as racing cars and road cars available to the public as part of the series' regulations." I've read this a few times and I can't figure out what "as part of the series' regulations" is doing at the end of the sentence.

Most of these are from just the lead. Considering the topic matter, it should be a brisk, light read. You have great information and great research here, but I feel like it needs some TLC from a skilled copyeditor. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed some of the issues you raised here, although not all quite yet. However I am looking for clarification of your statement on being a brisk, light read. Are you referring just to the lead or to the article as a whole? The359 (Talk) 17:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the whole article, recognizing that it might be difficult for you to action. I suggested getting a fresh copyeditor because sometimes new eyes can work wonders. --Laser brain (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Simpson[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Tom Simpson, one of Britain's most successful professional cyclists. I brought it up to GA back in 2013 and I'm keen to get it to FA, ideally on the front page on 13 July (the anniversary of his death). It's had a thorough copy edit thanks to Miniapolis over at WP:GOCE. The peer review only had one user's (Brianboulton) help. One thing I've found hard is toning down the cycling detail in the prose. All comments are welcome. Thanks. BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I thought this was able to pass FA when it passed GA. Solid work here. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. Like Disc Wheel, I felt that this article was able to pass FA when it was already at GA. I also note that BaldBoris has proposed 13 July for a potential showing if it was to be promoted...It could equally be sufficient for 5 September, as that would mark the 50th anniversary of him becoming world champion. But other than that, would be delighted to see this reach the top echelon. Pardon the pun. Craig(talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Support – with a few prefatory niggles:

  • "semifinals" – the OED hyphenates the word
  • "center" – American spelling
  • "license" (noun) – ditto
  • "bedrest" – another word for which the OED prescribes a hyphen
  • "pedaling" – another American spelling
  • "kilometers" (twice) – ditto
  • "That's my years supply of Micky Finns" – I can see that this is in a quote, but it might be worth checking that the source really does get "year's" and "Mickey Finns" wrong. So be it, if so.
  • duplicate links:
    • individual time trial
    • breakaway
    • Fausto Coppi
    • Jean-Claude Annaert
    • Raymond Louviot
    • world road race champion
    • Paris–Tours
    • Circuit de Provençal
    • Trofeo Baracchi
    • road world championships
    • Rudi Altig
    • six-day race
    • Felice Gimondi
    • Vin Denson
    • Eddy Merckx
    • Alan Ramsbottom
    • Cycling magazine
  • References
    • I spotted one ref (in "Personal life") where the citations were in this order: [282][79][153]. There may be other such cases: please check. For FA it is usual to have all refs cited in numerical order at each occurrence.

The subject of the article is so far outside my areas of expertise – such as they are – that my comments on the content must be seen as those of a well-disposed ignoramus. At 8,400 words the article is evidently comprehensive, and seems, to my layman's eye, to stick to the essentials; the referencing is full and varied; and the prose passes muster (I ignore its regrettable tendency to use the false title). I feel confident in supporting. Tim riley talk 21:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Tim. All fixed. The quote was my mistake, good spot! BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

It's a very detailed article, obviously the result of some devoted work, but I feel that the prose is still unpolished in places, and in my view it's going to need more work if it is to pass FAC. I've only read the Childhood and Track years sections, but I've picked up quite a few quibbles and a few more significant points. I've also made a few adjustments myself. Here is what I've got:

Childhood and club racing
  • "To upgrade his bike, he delivered groceries in the Bassetlaw district by bicycle and traded with a customer for a better road bike." - Clunky as it stands; I suggest you remove the first four words.
  • "Simpson began winning club time trials at his club" – delete the last three words
  • "In late 1955, Simpson was suspended from racing after a dispute between the two governing bodies of cycling in Britain (the NCU and the BLRC); both bodies agreed that if any rider committed an offence under the Road Traffic Act, they would incur a suspension." There is no evidence here of any dispute: rather, the two bodies seem to be in agreement.
  • "Simpson was caught by police failing to stop at a stop sign, and was banned for six months." I think you have combined two separate events here. It was not the police that banned him.
I originally overcomplicated it and then was lost further during the GOCE job. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Track years
  • General point, here and elsewhere: too much use of parentheses for subordinate clauses - normal punctuation should be used, unless the clause is a definite aside.
This was the GOCE editors style. I don't want to blame anyone, but I'm not skilled enough to tamper with it. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cartwright gave him diet advice, lent him a track bike and developed his technique" - I would say "helped him develop his technique"
  • "Reg Harris, a 1948 Olympic silver medallist, was brought in to train with Simpson." I find this wording odd. Harris at the time was at the peak of his fame – 1954 world champion, among the best-known sportsmen of his day – and it is not feasible that he could simply be "brought in" to train with a novice.
It seems to have been just a one-off session, so I cut it. BaldBoris 03:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The seven-rider contingent began in Leningrad, continuing to Moscow before finishing in Sofia." First, Sofia is in Bulgaria, not the (then) Soviet Union. Secondly, as written the sentence reads as though the team raced from Leningrad to Sofia, whereas I imagine this was the itinerary for a series of events.
  • "In spring 1958 he raced in the Daily Herald Trophy at the White Monday Meeting at Fallowfield before racing in Sofia with Sheil for two weeks and winning the national individual pursuit championship at Herne Hill Velodrome." Too much information for a single sentence. Perhaps: "In spring 1958 he raced in the Daily Herald Trophy at the White Monday Meeting at Fallowfield, before travelling to Sofia with Sheil for two weeks' racing. On his return he won the national individual pursuit championship at Herne Hill Velodrome."
  • In the brief peer review I carried out 18 months ago I expressed some concern that the prose might be more suitable for a cycling mag than a general encyclopaedia. This is still a problem. An example is "Against reigning world champion Carlo Simonigh of Italy in the opening round of the individual pursuit, his wheel got caught in the guttering tyre at the end of the race; when he bunny hopped his bike out, his tyre burst as it hit a crack in the concrete track". General readers won't know what "guttering tyre" means, and the term "bunny hopped his bike out" is equally hard to follow, even with the link.
  • Another general point: I am getting the feeling, as I read through, that there is substantial overdetailing, particularly in the sections dealing with Simpson's early career. I don't think it's necessary to refer to almost every race Simpson entered; there is scope for considerable summarisation.

I'll read on, although my time is somewhat limited. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I truly appreciated your help on this. I think I've neglected these sections thinking they were fine. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Further comments:

Track years (continued)
  • "Although he was in pain, team manager Benny Foster forced him to race in the quarterfinal against New Zealand's Warwick Dalton as a strategic move favouring Simpson's teammate Sheil, who won the gold medal." Needs more explanation if it's to make sense.
  • Why the citation string ([15][43][44][45])? Looks like over-citation
Move to Brittany
  • "The next day, his National Service papers were delivered; although willing to serve before his move, he later avoided conscription." This needs brief explanation: how did he "avoid" conscription?
  • What does it mean to be "underneath" the professional team?
  • More citation strings: it is simply unnecessary to cite straightforward facts to four sources.
  • "He expected to progress further..." – do you mean "He had expected to progress further..." (than the q-finals)?
  • "He retired from the Giro di Lombardia with a tyre puncture while in the lead group of riders, his first appearance in one of the five "monuments" of cycling." The sentence is wrongly constructed. Suggested rephrase: "In his first appearance in the Giro di Lombardia, one of the five "monuments" of cycling, he retired with a tyre puncture while in the lead group of riders."
Tour debut
  • Shouldn't the title be "Tour de France debut"?
  • "the now-famous" – beware WP:WEASEL (see "puffery")
  • "His televised effort launched his career, and he was now known throughout Europe". Surely something of an overstatement? "Known throughout Europe" implies international fame acquired over a long and successful career, rather than from a single TV race appearance. I would modify the wording.
  • "At age 22" is American English. Delete the "at" and say "aged 22".
  • "failing to recover" suggests that he dropped out of the Tour altogether. Yet he completed all the remaining stages of the race to finish in 29th place
  • "He struggled in the last of the classics, finishing 84th in the Giro di Lombardia." Again, an odd sentence construction: "In the last of the classics, the Giro di Lombardia, he struggled, finishing 84th".

All I have time for at present, but I'll continue. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All done. Thanks again. BaldBoris 01:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


1961 Tour of Flanders and injury
  • "As the race reached the paved section, he went on a solo attack and was told that Mercier-BP-Hutchinson rider Raymond Poulidor was chasing him down." "And" is not appropriate here, and I would like to know how he was told. Something like: "As the race reached the paved section he went on a solo attack, at which point his team-mates told him that Mercier-BP-Hutchinson rider Raymond Poulidor was chasing him down " – assuming that is accurate.
The sources just say he heard or was told. His teammates wouldn't have been able to from behind in the race, so it would have been either his team's support car or a service vehicle. BaldBoris
  • "catching the vehicles in front". Perhaps you should elaborate: "catching the team cars and other motor vehicles..." etc
  • I think he "collected" rather than "retrieved" the replacement wheel. To "retrieve" is to get something back, not to replace something.
  • His injury had not healed; after seeing several specialists, he had to ride, for financial reasons, in the Tour de France with the British team." I am confused by this. Are you saying that the "financial reasons" arose from his seeing several specialists? That's how it reads at the moment. I suspect, however, that what you mean is that his injury had not healed, even after treatment by various specialists, but for financial reasons he was forced to enter the Tour de France. Perhaps you can clarify, and adjust the prose accordingly.
1962 Yellow jersey
  • "Simpson moved to Ghent, Belgium" - Do you mean that he set up home in Ghent? If so, when, and why? In any event, Ghent should be linked.
  • Consistency in use of dashes is required. For example, you write "Paris–Nice" but "Milan – San Remo". Why is the latter linked on second rather than first mention?
This was brought up in the GA reveiw. The problem is with Milan – San Remo, see Talk:Milan – San Remo. Should bring it up at WikiProject Cycling? BaldBoris 23:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Milan – San Remo is linked on the first mention. There's two piped links in their respective sections: 1964 Milan – San Remo and 1967 Milan – San Remo. BaldBoris 01:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "He would become his team's leader..." Was he not already his team's leader?
  • "As the highest placed rider of the group in the GC before the stage..." For clarity I would reword this: "As he finished ahead of all the other leaders in the GC,..."
  • I found he paranthetical reference to Boardman unnecessary and distracting. Also another citation string at the end of th paragraph.
I dropped it, and the one about Cavendish in 1965 too. BaldBoris 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "He began six-day racing into his winter breakaway." What does this mean – what is a winter "breakaway"?
Is break clear enough? BaldBoris 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
1963 Bordeaux–Paris
  • Why did Simpson withdraw from the Paris-Nice race? If it was simply because he was no longer in contention, youn should say so.
  • Again, why the spaces around the dashes in "Milan – San Remo"?

I'm about halfway through, now. It is, I must say, very hard going; the relentless detailing of race after race without interruption is difficult for readers, particularly those with very little knowledge of cycle racing. Did Simpson do absolutely nothing else in his life except race? I see there is a little information in the brief "Personal life" section, at the end of the article, but a little leavening throughout the text would have humanised Simpson, who is presented here as little more than a robot. Maybe it's not too late for some careful restructuring. To be continued. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand your point. Although I must say though, professional cyclists ride bikes non-stop and don't have time for much else. It's never going to be a great read to, lets say, a science enthusiast, equally, an article on a type of flower won't interest a sports fan. Very hard to please everyone. I actually planned to include his life outside cycling in the pro career section but thought it wasn't done. Will have a good go at that and trim down the reeling off of results. BaldBoris 23:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I realise that there is little you can do to make his life more varied than it was – though I wonder whether his performance in pretty well every race he entered, including relatively minor ones, has to be recorded? I'm taking a 24-hour break from reviewing, which will give you a chance to do the trimming and other adjustments you refer to, and I'll return at the weekend. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm up to date with your suggestions now. I've done the trimming and will try to add something from his life in all of the sections. I'm away for the weekend, but will be able to get online. BaldBoris 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I still don't see why the non-standard format has to be used in Milan – San Remo. If it's because that's how the title of the Wikipedia article is formatted, use a pipe thus: Milan–San Remo. Please note here and here and here – no spaces around the dashes. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Some more reviewing:

1964 Milan–San Remo
  • "Two days later..." It would help if there were some earlier date indicators
  • Poulidor should have been linked on first mention, earlier in the article.
  • "a group of 22 riders (including Simpson) finished on a cinder track" – what's the significance of mentioning the cinder track? Did the other riders finish somewhere else?
  • "25 minutes and ten seconds behind" – don't mix text and numerics. Also, "behind the race leader", if that is the case.
  • "Simpson later discovered that he rode the Tour with tapeworms". I'd say "suffering from" rather than "with", which reads rather oddly.
  • "With the race reduced to five riders..." and then "Simpson was repeatedly overtaken, finishing 21st." How come?
Is cracked OK?. BaldBoris 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
My query was, how could Simpson finish in 21st position in a race that apparently only had 5 competitors. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
1965. World championship and Lombardia
  • "Simpson and his friend Albert Beurick supplied food and drink, stealing from other teams". I don't think "supplied" is the word; I suggest "Simpson and his friend Albert Beurick obtaind food and drink by stealing from other teams".
  • " Simpson was offered lucrative contracts by teams, including Flandria-Faema-Clément, offering him the years salary up front." Mangled syntax and punctuation here, and repetition. Something like: " Simpson was offered lucrative contracts by teams, including Flandria-Faema-Clément who were prepared to pay him the year's salary in advance".
  • Link Super Prestige Pernod International, and better preced it with "the"
It's linked in the 1963 section? BaldBoris 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "(with Formula One world champion Jim Clark finishing second) – entirely irrelevant as far as I can see.
1966. An injury ridden season
  • I've made a few minor prose adjustments.

I'll complete the review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

These are my final comments:

1967. Paris–Nice and Vuelta stages
  • First paragraph: A clearer explanation is needed as to how Simpson could be the leader of the "British team", and at the same time co-leader of the Italian team Salvarani. Surely, conflicts of interest would arise between the two appointments?
I don't understand your confusion. National teams, as I'm led to believe, only participated at the Tour de France (occasionally) and the world champs. Salvarani never raced against the British team. If you mean how can he share leadership of Salvarani, but not the British, well, this is commonplace on pro teams. He was outright leader of the British team. BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "He planned to attempt the hour record" – needs a bit more amplification
  • You mention Merckx's age twice, in text and in caption. Surely once is enough?
  • "Simpson rode away from peloton" – "the" missing
  • "by which time the race has passed" had passed?
  • "In an interview, Tour de France physician Pierre Dumas revealed that Simpson told him that he was taken to hospital during the Vuelta". I'm not sure you need this, but if think it's important you should indicate when the interview took place and who it was with.
  • What caused Dumas to make the 6.30 am statement: " If the riders take something [drugs] today, we'll have a death on our hands"? Was it that excessive heat was forecast?
  • "Simpson, still ill, was seen washing pills down with brandy" – who saw him?
  • General point: The habit of putting minor subordinate clauses in parentheses, e.g. (one of which was labelled "Tonedron") should be resisted. I've knocked out a few - perhaps you'd deal with the remainder.
  • What does the description of Mercks as "the only continental professional" mean? That every other continental rider was an amateur?
Changed it to "the only continental rider in attendance" BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "although he implied that other competitors were involved" – do you mean that he implied that he himself was not involved? Obviously he thought others were.
  • "Lewis recalled Simpson acquiring a small box from outside at their room's door." This is excessively awkward phrasing - try to polosh it.
Riding style and legacy
  • A "fearful" descender? It sounds from the description as though he was fearless.
It's what's printed [45]. A misquote? BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Simpson's death was contributed to his unwillingness to admit defeat ascending Mont Ventoux". I think you mean "attributed"
  • ""He said he felt peace of mind and wasn't afraid to die. He said he would have been happy dying." Clarify that it is Denson saying this.
Family and interests
  • "Soon after moving to France in 1959 the Simpson met Helen Sherburn": the Simpson?
  • "who's" → "whose"

I'm impressed by the amount of research behind this article, less impressed by the rather unseemly haste with which people have rushed to support it at FAC when it contained far too many basic prose errors. Some of these I have corrected myself and others I've raised in the review. I have done what I can, and can't spend any more time on it. It probably needs another pair of eyes, when you have have made the required changes. I'm sure it will get there in the end. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your time given to this Brian. I'm sorry if you thought it would be easier. If I do another FAC, I won't make the same mistakes. BaldBoris 02:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK[edit]

  • File:Tom_Simpson_1969_Ajman_stamp.jpg - Maybe it's just me, but his portrait looks like the artist's stylized impression and not like a natural portrait. Have you considered other alternatives? Even a black/white image with a more natural portrait could work as lead image. (Copyright-wise this one would be OK, if no better photo is available).
I know what you mean, but I'm sure it's just because of it's a scan of a stamp. I had a cropped version of this non-free until recently, when I saw it on commons. There's almost no chance of another free portrait. BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
If the stamp shows a realistic portrait and is suitable for identification, I am afraid we can't use a non-free variant for the same purpose (WP:NFCC #1). It would have to be a PD photo. But as I said, if you can't find a PD alternative, the current image is OK. (GJ)
Does that mean all the images in the category should be deleted? BaldBoris 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Commons has been quite strict about FoP violations in the past, but I have posted a request for further advice at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright to verify the current handling (I wasn't aware about the whole batch of similar photos, thanks). Suggest to remove the image for now (if I am completely on the wrong track, it can be easily re-inserted). GermanJoe (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Image has been deleted and replaced - the new image should be OK under de-minimis considerations (memorial is not the image's main focus).
  • All other images are PD (the dresses are PD-simple imo) or CC and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • MOS:CAPTION - please check all captions: complete, grammatically correct sentences should end with a period. GermanJoe (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Support This is obviously a well-written and very well-documented article earning to be promoted. One remark about the Freedom of Panorama act in France, as I am familiar with the Belgian code - which is similar to the Panorama act in France. There is no freedom of distribution, but the act is very unlikely to be imposed. Images need only be removed if there is an official complaint, which rarely occurs. Dr.robin (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I'll give the article a proper review in the nest few days, but it looks good. One thing I did notice wss that the tables in the results section do not meet WP:ACCESS. You need to row and col scopes to these to ensure they are accessible to people who use screenreaders to browse the site. Good work. NapHit (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit, your input would be great. I'll sort out the tables. BaldBoris 01:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


  • "before taking the general classification..." taking doesn't sound right to me, perhaps change to "and won the..."?
  • I would perhaps move ref 4 and 6 to after 1943, as refs are supposed to come after punctuation
  • "at and engineering..." think this is a typo
  • I'd perhaps move the ref about the poggio being used for the first time, to directly after it is mentioned. Just so it is clear that it is referenced
  • "he alone for about..." missing a word here
  • "that he began following Simpson's death..." this reads oddly to me
  • ref 265, seems to be missing something, as there is a red help sign next to it

Other than these quibbles, this is a fantastic article that details the subject extremely well. Great work. NapHit (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for that. The citation error has driven me crazy on the numerous times I've tried to fixed it. The error shows when |series= is missing from {{cite episode}}, even though the error says |title=. The problem is that the radio episode was a one-off? There was a discussion about it which stalled. BaldBoris 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's not going to stop me from Supporting the article. As a cycling aficionado, it is a great read though I can relate to Brian's point about it being a bit hard for the layman to read. NapHit (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - just 2 minor points (unfortunately I won't have time for a full detailed SR):

  • Refs #290 and #296 have no page numbers. If possible, you should provide page information for all book references and other large sources.
I was just referencing the actual books. Added Roman numerals to the edition notice. BaldBoris 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The article uses "Simpson 2000" twice (ref #97 and #102). Should that be 2009? (or is it a second book source of the same author?). GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yea added these yesterday, silly me. BaldBoris 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Source review - I'll continue this then: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

material faithful to ref 169's source.
material faithful to ref 81's source.
material faithful to ref 198's source.
Material from sources in McGann & McGann 2008 all faithful and good.
I ran this though Earwig's Copyvio Detector and got this result. Now I was alarmed at first look but the latter page is from this one. The second article is clear and fine.

some prose issues:

Simpson's risk-taking on descents was visible throughout his career - "evident" is a better adjective here....
In mid-September, Simpson competed for two weeks in Eastern European against Russian and Italian teams to prepare for the Olympics. - "Eastern Europe", right?
Can't link to a foreign language wikipedia article directly - Carlo Simonigh needs an stub, not linked to the italian one, and Tour del Sud-Est needs an english stub, not a link to the Catalan wikipage...

The prose and comprehensiveness look ok otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the source check and comments Cas. Regarding the interlanguage links, I can't see anything at H:IL discouraging their use. Also was there a reason why you didn't mention these:
If you just missed them, shall I unlink them, if you still think they shouldn't be used? BaldBoris 22:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, you're right, I can't see anything there so don't worry about the foreign links. Support then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

Gadget850 is retiring; Notified: WikiProject Scouting

Per talk page notification: uncited text, and prose/style issues, including repetitive headings, short sections and too short lead. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith[edit]

Notified: COGDEN, WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement
URFA nom

Per talk page notification: punctuation problems and overuse of "however", uncited text and opinion, use of primary sources, and harv ref errors. DrKiernan (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wiggles[edit]

Notified: User:ANTONIOROCKS, User:AngusWOOF, User:Mitch Ames

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a 2008 promotion from the Unreviewed Featured Articles list. It was actually my very first FAC, and my inexperience as an editor was apparent. Shortly before it appeared on URFA list, I decided that it needed a major overhaul. To that end, I checked every source for dead links and for utilization, I improved the prose, and updated it (which was needed after two iterations of the group since the article passed to FA). I think that it can easily pass an FAR, but it needs to be checked and like all articles, could always use further feedback. I'm not notifying any projects about this FAR, since none was really involved with its improvement or upkeep through the years. This article has been TFA, but way back in 2008, shortly after it was passed. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Notified: FAC nominator, Avraham, aware; WP Math, WP Business, WP Statistics, WP Finance
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion from the Unreviewed Featured Articles list that had fallen below standard, but whose FAC nominator Avraham engaged on talk to address issues raised with a substantial rewrite. After significant improvements and updates, I am bringing it to FAR for more eyes; it is my expectation that the article will likely be Kept without FARC, but more feedback is welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Didn't we improve on the quality of references since then? I find the current type of refs be rather distracting, and making the reading o the text awkward. {{relnote}} or something like that should be used instead. Nergaal (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • See WP:WIAFA, inline citation is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I see 1.a and I don't find this type of citations to make the prose "engaging". Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • As a matter of opinion, you are more than welcome to prefer one style over the other. There are others who find this style more aesthetically pleasing and engaging than footnotes. De gustibus non est disputandum. However, as a matter of the criteria for FA, both methods are equally acceptable per Wikipedia standards. I would hope that the article's review would not suffer due to aesthetic opinions that are unrelated to our featured article criteria. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Moreover, I believe the prose should be considered as separate and distinct from the citation method; the two are separate criteria. Conflating the two and then deciding based on a personal opinion that is not supported by WP:WIAFA is something I would hope would not occur. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I feel like the quality of citations and possibly comprehensiveness should be scrutinized further. For example, I looked at the "Need for insurance" heading and the lone citation is to p. 3 of a presentation by Lewin. There isn't a whole lot of text on p. 3 of that PDF, and not everything in that heading is supported. This indicates the need for further spot-checks to ensure everything is sourced. The "Credentialing and exams" heading seems rather light on information, alluding to different systems of requirements in different countries but not providing much detail. Many other sections seem too brief. I'll do another read-through and make a tentative list of suggested expansions, but I'd like to here Avraham's thoughts on the comprehensiveness. --Laser brain (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll review Lewin, but credentialing and exams was split off into its own article, and per summary style should be light. -- Avi (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I visited the original FAC nomination and read your rationale for covering those topics more lightly. --Laser brain (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Laser brain: in the article, Lewin is only being sued to support the statement "…the concept of insurance dates to antiquity" which I believe pages 3–4 do successfully. It is not meant to support anything subsequent. That is what the Heywood, BeAnActuary, Feldblum, and IFA sources are for. In general, sources support only the sentence or phrase they follow. If they support multiple sentences, you can see that in the edit view where there will be HTML comment tags <!-- XXXXXX --> surrounding the corpus of text intended to be supported. Does that ameliorate any of your concerns? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Equipartition theorem[edit]

Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because there's a lot uncited text, Promoted more than 8 years ago, talk page noticed 17 days ago. FAC nominator inactive for almost a year, notified.Jarodalien (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The nomination is problematic for at least a couple of reasons:
  • According to Wikipedia:Featured article review, the nominator should raise issues and attempt to resolve them on the talk page first. But the nom did not do this. There is only a section with the cryptic title "possible FAR". Who knows what a FAR is? "FAR" is FA geek jargon that ordinary editors aren't expected to be familiar with. There should have been an explanation of the {{refimprove}} tag being a possible prelude to a featured article review, a list of concrete issues to be solved, and a notice that there may be a time limit to this, after which a formal review may be invoked. None of this was stated, nor even a link provided.
  • No policy-based reason was given for either the {{refimprove}} tag on the article or this nomination. The assertion "a lot uncited text" (sic) is not a valid issue. On the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria admin page, inline citation guidance is given by the essay Wikipedia:When to cite. In that essay, there are no thresholds for citation count or percentage of cited text. Instead there are particular classes of assertions that should always be cited (e.g., BLP stuff, quoted text, etc.) and other assertions that may be cited, if the assertions are non-frivolously challenged as being controversial or wrong. There are also classes of assertions, such as common knowledge in the field, that should not be cited.
Hence, I think it would be best to close this nomination, go back to the article and engage the editors on the talk page with concrete, policy-based issues to help improve the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the nominator did follow instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As always, I warmly welcome constructive feedback on my articles. I left a message on the Talk page offering my assistance in bringing Equipartition theorem up to current standards in FAs and asking for concrete points that need to be referenced. I may need some help from the Physics Wikiproject, my present whereabouts being in Germany and my personal physics library not being with me. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that we can bring the article up to respectability. P.S. Hi, Sandy! So lovely to see you here. :) Willow (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WillowW ... the FAR process has the built-in ability to be flexible on timing, so please keep the page posted on your progress. Will you be able to access your library any time in the next month? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alas, no, because I moved permanently to Germany and 100 boxes of sundry textbooks were too much to send by post. I sent my favorites, but my Stat Mech books didn't make the first cut. So they're resting serenely in a storage unit. Still, I have a pretty good memory of where to find what and I daresay I can find many English sources online. Worst case scenario, I'll just *have* to buy the latest editions, like Br'er Rabbit thrown into the briar patch. ;) I intend to resolve this to Jarodalien's satisfaction, however, within the month. Willow (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@WillowW: any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I left a message right away for Jarodalien asking what he would like references for, but I didn't hear back for several weeks and I got busy at work, so it fell off my radar. I see now that Jarodelian has since replied, and I'll get to work on fixing those elements. Sorry about the molasses movement on this. :P Willow (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell[edit]

Notified: PumpkinSky, Wimvandorst, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, WikiProject Scouting

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged for citation and fringe theories for over 18 months. Section called "Significant family members" is essentially unsourced; prose problems include even sub-headings such as "Related readings" and sentence fragments such as "2l's instructions.". DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The sentence fragment was the result of a partial reversion of some vandalism; I fixed it. I agree about the uncited sections, though, and the writing in the first part, about his family, is a bit confusing.--Coemgenus (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So, we've been promoting someone's hobby site all these years as a reliable source? When I see a case like this, I so wish we had a speedy delist option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Is it worth comparing the diff of the FA- passed version in 2007 and the current version? Perhaps that comparison can remove the cruft and keep what's still in good shape? Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The promoted version was also based on hobby sites:[46] not only is this article far from FA standard; it doesn't even meet WP:V (and never did). Ealdgyth did not start doing routine sourcing checks at FAC until March 2008. (Sourcing requirements were tightened in March 2009, and copyvio checks started in Nov 2010.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. Well, I guess if people who take care of the article now want to improve it, I guess it's best that I don't find myself caring more about the article than they do. There was some kind of automatic post at the article's talk page, yes? Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Sad to see that years old grudges die so hard. Sandy, "scouting" is not a "hobby". It's a very honorable tradition which instills values to young men and women. But hey, you made your point. I suppose that's all that counts. WP:RS has become much more stringent over the years. Sure - "speedy" do whatever - good on you. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, see the instructions at FAR (I responded to more of your concerns on talk, unfortunately under a sub-heading that applies to Ched). Please see personalization of issues on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Meh. I'm done here. I hope the active editors are able to work on the article. Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bringing this article to FA standard is going to require some serious time in a library. There is a long list of books that aren't used (in Further reading); the books that were used are often missing page numbers; all of the inferior sources and hobby sites have to be replaced; and there will now be the problem of making sure info that might come from Wikipedia mirrors (since this bio has been in this state for about 10 years) is not cited. Again, this would be a case for a speedy delete if we had such a thing, because the article was never based on adequate scholarship or reliable sources; fixing it at this point would require an effort larger than anything typical for FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Although I would be very pleased to see the B-P article listed as FA, and surely the subject does warrant such status, I quite agree with SandyGeorgia about the current state of the article, and the sheer amount of work it will require to have it up to spec. So, no support for FA promotion now, but a (small) promise to work on it and improve it to a better state than it has become over all those years. Wim van Dorst (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC).

Hi, Wimvandorst-- how nice to "see" you again! In reviewing the significant amount of problem we have on Wikipedia with
  • This list doesn't include all of them, since it misses those that link to
I see we also have a problem at Baden-Powell House (which I explicitly supported at FAC, saying "The article appears to be well referenced... Sandy 02:24, 16 July 2006", so we had a problem back then, which I was part of :) The issues at Baden-Powell House don't look nearly as extensive or hard to clean up, so it would be grand if you could be enticed to work on that one ! It would be hard to fix this article, but that one seems doable. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In processing through some of the list above of I have found:
  1. Most scouting articles that use it also use multiple non-reliable sources (listservs and other personal websites)
  2. There are some (possibly) reliable uses of (this one for example seems OK, and the site alleges permission to host the page)
  3. And some pages are taken from Wikipedia, which Wikipedia then cites (the mirror problem, using Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia). [47]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd work on this if it weren't for all the looney birds and grudge holders. It's not worth the stress. PumpkinSky talk 21:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Georg Forster[edit]

Notified: Kusma, WP Libraries, WP Germany, WP Plants, WP Journalism, WP Birds
URFA nom.

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has uncited text and some MOS issues, as mentioned on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in the future you could ping the appropriate projects, rather than just putting a comment on the talk page and hoping someone might notice? We didn't know there was a problem until you pinged us today with news of the review. :P Will see what I can do. MeegsC (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm thrilled to see people descending on the article for improvements, even though the talk page notice was ignored for more than two weeks, indicating that we had another older unwatched FA. Meegs, your suggestion is impractical for many reasons, which we could take up at WT:FAR (so as not to muck up this page) if you are interested. Please keep in mind that one of the main objectives of FAR is to improve articles, and being here is not a "punishment". Also, I hope you've noted from the FAR instructions that we can KEEP without FARC, which is an outcome that delights most of us here ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am a bit busy IRL these days, and do not have much wikitime to dedicate to this right now, especially not without a bit more detail on what is wrong. As I haven't kept track of everything that happened at MOS: could you point me to the major issues that you see? Also, not every sentence is followed by an inline citation, but if you could tell me where you would expect additional citations I am happy to go hunting through my Forster biographies. Sadly, my current university library doesn't seem to have a copy of Saine's biography, but I'll see what I can do. —Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your list. I'll try to improve the messiness. Fortunately, there actually are page numbers in most citations to Saine's biography, but they are visible only in the wikitext, not in the displayed result. I do not recall why this is the case and whether they used to be displayed when the article passed FA. On the whole, the article has been quite stable since it became a FA, but I certainly agree it no longer looks like the best we can do. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • spaced WP:EMDASHes ... the article should use either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes.
  • What is the order of the Works section? Alpha, chrono?
  • Book sources need page nos.
  • Citations do not have a consistent style (as but one example, look at the many different ways author names are rendered)
  • Citations are incomplete or incorrently written. All sources need a publisher, all websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be supplied whenever available, also ...
    • [2], English translation at (archived link, 19 July 2008) needs to be cleaned up to a correct citation.
  • Check image captions (for example, The Pinnacle of liberty, A satire by James Gillray)
  • Italics should not be used here, and I'm wondering if this can be reversed (that is, put the English version, with a footnote to the original ???) ("The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.) See WP:NONENG. That is one sentence: I don't think it needs a pull quote, but Maralia may know better.
  • There's sort of a mess everywhere in terms of WP:ITALICS in relation to words as words, translations, quotes, etc:
    • called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality")
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINK on common terms known to most English speakers and not needed for understanding of this article (samples, Latin, England, philosophy, there is more) and link on first occurrence.

This is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Fixed all dead links, captions and a few overlinks.
  • Improved dash-usage (opted for spaced en-dash), but this will need another look (especially in refs).
  • WP:ITALICS, "page numbers and other ref details", and "sorting of works" in a meaningful way is above my paygrade.
  • I could try to transform references into cite-templates - if nobody is objecting against that citation style. Only a minority of references use cite-templates currently. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC to keep on progress. Is anyone willing/able to finish this up? There are still inconsistent citations, minor amounts of united text, italics issues (e.g. quotes), and Overlinking, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    I am still giving this 100% of my wikitime, but that hasn't been much at all (travelling, work, sick kids). I hope I'll get through the citations next week. —Kusma (t·c) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Kusma; I will be traveling for a few weeks if you don't hear back from me. <