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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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 Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks
Shortcut:

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Suillus bovinus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is another fungal collaboration. Sources have been scoured. Only material not used was highly esoteric and likely of no interest to layperson. Got a thorough GA review. Please read and suggest improvements. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NB: This is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators (i.e. me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacob van Ruisdael[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacob van Ruisdael was a Dutch Golden Age landscape painter. I adopted the article a few months ago when it was lacking references. With the help of Jane023 I got it to GA status recently, following suggestions from the helpful Chiswick Chap. This is my first FAC. Comments will be very much appreciated. I hope you enjoy reading about this old master, whose works may or may not have deep meaning. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton[edit]

Welcome to your first FAC, and I hope you don't find the experience too daunting. While the article generally looks in good shape, I am a little concerned by the extent of under-referencing. Specifically:

  • The final paragraph of the "The later years" lacks citations
  • The entire "Attributions" section is uncited
  • At least half-a-dozen paragraphs in the text end with uncited statements
  • Information contained in footnotes needs to be cited on the same basis as main text.

These comments arise from a very superficial survey of the article, but they should be attended to as soon as possible. I will try to find time to add more substantive comments as the review proceeds. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm sorry for under-referencing. I have started adding citations already and will continue after work tonight. In quite a few cases it is a matter of moving the sfn to the end of the paragraph, so I'm not daunted by the task. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret is a somewhat peculiar 19th century history painting. Probably intended as a moral test for male viewers to view a scene of sex, violence and vulnerability without feeling lust, at least one academic considers BRFA as marking the turning point in art history at which nudity ceased to be symbolic of innocence and instead became symbolic of domination and coercion. BRFA is a very odd-looking work to the modern eye, but that's because The Faerie Queene has fallen out of favour in recent years—at the time, Spenser was as popular as Shakespeare in the English-speaking world, and audiences could reasonably be assumed to understand the references without explanation. ‑ iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

From The Doctor to my son Thomas[edit]

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"From The Doctor to my son Thomas" is a heartwarming video sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Demiurge1000 and Sasata pitched in with some useful copy-edits. Miyagawa reviewed the article and it was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality. The article was helpfully looked over at WP:DYK by Curly Turkey, G S Palmer, Cwmhiraeth, and Panyd. I'm grateful to all for the assistance helping further along the Quality improvement process.

I appreciate your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism, User talk:Cirt, Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas. — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

Good point, Johnbod, could you help me copy-edit and make some tweaks? — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Johnbod, I've gone through and copy-edited out to switch to British English as best I could, please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks again for picking up on that ! — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. I'm quite grateful to Johnbod for the helpful copy-edits. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Indopug[edit]

  • Comments surely the title of 42-second video should be in quotes, not italics? From MOS:ITAL, "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, research papers and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks".—indopug (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Changed to quotes. Removed italics. Thank you, Indopug, that's a helpful suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Assassination of Spencer Perceval[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Spencer Perceval, the only British prime minister to suffer death by assassination, yet this singular event is scarcely known about. It happened in 1812, during the Napoleonic wars and at a time of great economic distress and industrial turmoil—yet these great events had nothing to do with his death. It happened because John Bellingham, a Liverpool-based trader, was piqued that the government wouldn't compensate him for losses and imprisonment in Russia a few years previously, after a deal had gone wrong, and decided on a personal act of revenge. The suffering populace thought Bellingham a hero, and rejoiced; the establishment had their revenge by trying, convicting and executing him within a week. And then everybody forgot about Perceval and wrote him out of history. Here's the story. Huge thanks are due to a patient team of peer reviewers, whose primping and polishing is such an essential part of the process. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Singora[edit]

Hello Brian. I hope you're okay in sunny England. I read your article earlier today and made a couple of minor tweaks. Your comments about the peer review ("such an essential part of the process") amuse me. But let's not get into that.

Your article is excellent. You say that Wellington was "pinned down in Portugal". In 1810, yes; in 1812, no. But this is neither here nor there.

I'm sure little Timothy and Mr Schrocat will be along soon to give you your gold star. Good luck!

Singora (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes, and for spotting and correcting the isbn error in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – I distinctly perked up when I read in the preamble, above, "the only British prime minister to suffer death by assassination, yet" – but alas… That grave disappointment apart, I have nothing but praise for the article itself. Such quibbles as I had, which were few and small, were dealt with at the peer review, and the article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment. – Tim riley talk 16:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I did think of inserting "so far" or "alas" at appropriate points in the preamble, but I can't risk an incitement charge, Thanks for your sturdy help with the review and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Support—I had my say at the peer review. Meets the criteria in my view and I have no qualms about supporting. I think this is one of my favourites from among the articles you have done—I particularly like the supposed revenge part at the end. Well done indeed, Brian. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "revenge" bit is probably the least convincing part of the story from a historian's perspective, but it rounds the article off nicely, I think. Thank you for your earlier review comments and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose etc. Very informative, interesting and well-written, I think this article meets the criteria nicely. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support had my say at the peer review. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • To both of the above, I am grateful for your encouragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support − I found the article to be a comprehensive and well-written account of Perceval's assassination. In my view, the article meets the FAC criteria easily. Z105space (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your interest in the article, and I'm glad to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Brianboulton, I've just finished my comprehensive and thorough review of your article and I assess that it most definitely meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is indeed well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I find that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. While Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is purely optional, I always suggest incorporating alt text for users with a screen reader due to a visual impairment. Following a review of media, I find that all the images are properly licensed as either Public Domain (PD and PD-US) or CC BY-SA 4.0 and are therefore eligible for inclusion in this article. Otherwise, I concur with the comments, assessments, and previous reviews by Tim riley, Cliftonian, SchroCat, Wehwalt, and Z105space. Fantastic job on this one! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your various kind words, and for checking out the images. On the question of alt text, I stopped adding it some time ago, when I found there was a division of view among the visually impaired about the usefulness of such text. I would be open to persuasion if there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile I appreciate your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Migration of Serbs[edit]

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A painting that most Balkan folk would instantly recognize, this work isn't nearly as famous in the West. Composed by Paja Jovanović for an exhibition marking 1,000 years since the Hungarians settled Hungary, it wasn't completed in time for the exhibit due to politically motivated meddling by a Serbian church leader. Four versions were completed in all, three of which survive. I believe this article is quite comprehensive and FA seemed like the next logical step. 23 editor (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments Interesting topic,but:
  • The title here isn't idiomatic, perhaps not grammatical, and isn't used by RS. There seems to be no standard translation, but (The) Migration of the Serbs and Migration of Serbs are common, with variants such as The Great Serbian Migration. But not The Migration of Serbs.
  • Most paras are too long, & should be split.
  • There's no point in links to the google books page for the works used. Where they have a preview, as Filipovitch-Robinson, Lilien (2014) does, that is worth linking to.
  • The reference works are in no order that I can see. Alphabetic by author is usual and best.
  • The current "Background" section's two (over-long) paras deal respectively with the historical background around 1700 and the commissioning of the painting in the 1890s. Two sections might be better.
  • The full details of the versions might be better moved from the lead, which otherwise is short on summary of the other sections.
  • For an article on a painting, there's not much art history in terms of style etc.

Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Have addressed some comments; will continue with the rest tomorrow. Expanding on stylistic context shouldn't be a problem. I'll add a paragraph or so from Antić on Jovanović's history of painting historical scenes and this painting's stylistic implications tomorrow or the day after. Thanks for the review so far! 23 editor (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Christ Church, Newton[edit]

Nominator(s): JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a historic church and Anglican congregation in northern New Jersey that was chartered by George III. I have nurtured the article from creation, through DYK, and it was promoted to GA by Drmies. I think the article has been improved and that FAC, the natural next step, would polish off any last burrs. I hope you enjoy! JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, vicar, and thanks for this interesting article. I think, however, you should standardise your use of the ecclesiastical honorific. At present you have "the Rev.", "the Reverend" and "the Rev'd". All are OK, but you should choose one and stick to it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Brianboulton I've brought them all consistently in line with the Anglican form of "Rev'd" throughout. "Rev." kept slipping in, must be the Presbyterian influence :-). JackTheVicar (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note--the Vicar and I chatted some about formatting the references, and I'm curious to see what y'all think about it and what your suggestions are. Jack, I won't weigh in yet since it's pretty much the same version I looked at, but I'll be glad to have a look after there've been some suggestions. Feel free to ping me at that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • JackTheVicar, as I also have a historic church up for FAC, I've taken particular interest in your article for Christ Church. First and foremost, thank you for your hard work on this article, and for submitting it here for review and promotion to FA. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of your article, and I assess that it meets the attributes outlined at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable; its lede meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section; and it is written in an appropriate structure with consistent citations. An image review and other comments and suggestions are shared below. Thanks again for your hard work and dedication to this topic. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • JackTheVicar, upon my re-review of the article and a review of your responses, I hereby Support this article for promotion to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tomandjerry211 (alt)[edit]

First of all, I agree with all of West Virginian's comments, and I have a few others:

  • Why do you need to put the page number outside the cite, when you just can put it in the cite?
    • Reply: That's the way the {{rp}} template (Template:Rp) works for some reason. Unfortunately, it's a compromise since the alternative—using cite templates—offer little flexibility to a user in writing a footnote and I'm not partial to how they format a citation, and the html <ref> citation method doesn't work well with repeated citations to a source that requires different page numbers for the relevant information being cited. the {{rp}} template seems to have been designed to remedy that shortcoming with the <ref> method. The {{sfn}} template is not one I use. As WP:WIAFA doesn't require a specific method, and my use or ref html tags with the rp template is consistent throughout the article and in keeping with the expected use of the rp template, is there an issue?JackTheVicar (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency: "p. 13–14, pp. 23–24", pp. is preferred by many.
    • Fixed & Reply: As Template:Rp says "Do not add "Page", "pp.", etc.—just the numbers." in its instructions, I'm removing all references to p. or pp. in the article. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Citation for the first note?
  • Why do you have to pipe link to Christ Church (Disambiguation) (which is a redirect) instead of just directly linking to Christ Church.
    • Fixed & Reply: I removed the pipe link to the redirect. I don't know why other than that might have been the page I found when I wrote the article, but I don't remember after all these months. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, I'm happy with this article. Thanks,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Kalavrye[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A not very long article about a rather unknown battle in one of the Byzantine civil wars, it is nevertheless one of the few where we have a complete description of its course and the manoeuvrings of the opposing armies. It was also the first major battle of the future emperor Alexios I Komnenos, and hence determined the course of later Byzantine history. The article was created back in 2010 and uses all available sources that deal with the event in some depth. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR easily enough, but for some reason I did not nominate it for FA back then, so I'll try to remedy it now. Constantine ✍ 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

William Sterling Parsons[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Deak Parsons, the Naval officer who was the deputy head of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory, and the commander of the mission that bombed Hiroshima. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:MK53_fuze.jpg: source link is dead and image is tagged as lacking author. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Question from John Why the hard-coded image sizes? Per WP:IMGSIZE we would generally allow readers to set their own display sizes and use the "upright" parameter to enlarge particularly important ones. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Townsend[edit]

Nominator(s): CurtisNaito (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive article about the American anti-interventionist advocate Ralph Townsend.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Where did you check for copyright renewal?
  • File:Gerald_Nye.jpg is missing source, author, and date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The pictures were located in publications long out of print by long deceased authors. However, I'll delete the photograph of Gerald Nye.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Understood, but if you're going to say that the copyright was not renewed it's best to check that that is actually the case - it's very possible for an out-of-print work to still be renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Slight sourcing concern Don't have time to look at the article in detail at the moment, but why is Clark's Japan Times opinion piece being cited for the factual claim that Japan's far right have herofied Townsend, but not the corresponding claim Clark makes that Townsend has been rejected in his homeland? Our article (or at least that paragraph) would appear to give the opposite impression. Shouldn't a source be located that directly supports the full claim, or else Clark's (full) opinion be attributed to him inline? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The source notes that Townsend is regarded as a hero by right-wing Japanese. It doesn't say he is "rejected in his homeland".CurtisNaito (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The source's exact words are Townsend ended up in a U.S. wartime jail, accused of treason.But for the rightwing here, he is a hero. Clark was drawing an ironic contrast between U.S. and Japanese attitudes to Townsend. Cherry-picking one side of his comparison and implicitly contradicting everything else he says is not a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Clark believes that the Japanese right-wing regard Townsend as a hero. By contrast, saying that Townsend spent time in prison is a simple factual statement which is already discussed at length in the article. I don't think we need to repeat such a basic fact in a paragraph dealing with Townsend's impact in Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period. The article went through and passed its GAN about two months ago and has been further polished since, thanks to a peer review and a copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. True Detective‍‍ '​‍s first season is beautifully shot, acted, and in truth one of my favorite shows ever, and I hope its namesake article does it justice. Cheers! DAP388 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Shokaku-class carriers were completed just before the beginning of the Pacific War and have been judged to have been the best aircraft carriers in the world at that time. They participated in almost every carrier battle during the war until their loss in 1944. Both ships missed the Battle of Midway and thus, by default, became the core of the IJN's striking forces for the rest of the war. They sank two of the four American fleet carriers lost during the war, plus a British light carrier. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review which included a thorough image review. I'd like reviewers to see if there is any unexplained jargon and look for any infelicities of prose as I believe that this article meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fig_of_japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shokaku_in_1942.gif: what is the source for the information presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's CC-BY-SA-3.0 and is the work of the copyright holder.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That's fine, I'm not worried about copyright status so much as verifiability, in terms of where the information presented came from. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Another article in my series on German warships, this one passed an A-class review about a year ago, and has been waiting in line for FAC since. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 October 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) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Barbarossa_Bain_picture.jpg: if this is a news service image, why is it a government image?
    • No idea - fixed to the standard Bain copyright tag.
  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Barbarossa.png is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 sci-fi action comedy film that polarises viewers. This is my second nomination of this article for FAC, having now addressed all the concerns brought up at the first one, including putting the article through a thorough copyedit courtesy of the guild of copyeditors. Freikorp (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Support—supported at the last nomination and see no reason not to do so again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Norse-American medal[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a medal that was authorized by Congress and sold to the public for the Norse-American centennial of 1925. Although it is not a coin, it was often collected as if it were one (less so today than in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was much broader interest in medals than there is now in the US. The brainchild of Congressman Ole Juulson Kvale, a Norse-American (surprise, surprise), the medal and the celebrations it was a part of accomplished the difficult task of showing both ethnic pride and assimilation. And, I must admit, as an experienced cruiser, when I read of the voyage of the Restauration (Restoration, not restaurant) all I could think was "party cruise"! Skal!Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Smilodon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Smilodon is one of the best known prehistoric mammals, and the best known saber-toothed cat. It may also have been the largest cat that ever lived. We have synthesised most information about the genus and its three species, and explained various controversies. The article is a GA and has been copy edited. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to support now. Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Overall, Smilodon was more robustly built than any modern cat - I'd say "living cat" or "extant cat"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably want to link bush from the lead as it can mean different things to different people....(scrubland?)
Linked to shrubland, but perhaps LittleJerry has other ideas... FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Smilodon probably lived in a "closed" habitat - why the quote marks here?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, have read though and nothing else is jumping out as an obvious fix so I think we are over the line WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for support and CE! FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bristol[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bristol is the largest city in south west England. It has over 1,000 years of history and has become a major centre for trade, business and culture - all of which are reflected in the article. Since its creation in 2002 the article has received over 4,000 edits, four peer reviews and a recent copy edit. The previous nomination (in August 2015) which was archived a few weeks ago, included a lot of discussion about whether a specific image could be included. The issue was resolved however there were few other comments on whether the article meets the criteria.— Rod talk 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Images are now appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Quick comments:
  • What happened to the 19th century in the history headings? A couple of mentions in "17th and 18th centuries", but really not much.
  • "Competition from Liverpool (beginning around 1760)..." - wasn't it that by then Bristol Docks simply couldn't handle the larger ships being built? Worth saying. Avonmouth eventually had the same problem, but was able to solve it - unlike Liverpool.
  • The sport section seems pretty long, and the architecture one rather short, and not very informative; eg the cautious assertion that: "Buildings from most architectural periods of the United Kingdom can be seen in the city", which is just about true, but not very helpful. It's more true if you mean post-1707 architectural periods, but I suspect you don't - use English. Fully 1/3 of the Grade I listed buildings are in Portland Square, Bristol and Blaise Hamlet, so why not mention them? Bristol's surviving significant architecture pretty much all comes from after 1700, except for the Cathedral, and St Mary Redcliffe, which is outstanding and well-known, & worth mentioning. What about Clifton?
  • "Outside the city centre are several Tudor and later mansions built for wealthy merchants".[1] is not covered by the reference, which just talks about one, though certainly true. In fact Bristol has I think no reasonably intact Tudor houses, so it may not be good to raise expectations.
  1. ^ Historic England. "Red Lodge (380113)". Images of England. Retrieved 27 August 2015. 
  • Should probably expand a bit on Bristol as a centre for baccy, & rescue W.D. & H.O. Wills from "see also".
  • Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address these by adding a 19th century section to the history and expanding the architecture section - incporating the other issues identified along the way. Could you take another loom and see whether you think these are appropriate?— Rod talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Strong support - Well-written article. Iggy488 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support.— Rod talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I may not have time to fully appraise the article, but am opposing based on the Arts subsection which I did review. The subsection is a collection of unconnected facts with no logic governing its flow. The lead sentence is "Bristol was a finalist for the 2008 European Capital of Culture, with the title awarded to Liverpool." How is that the most important take-away from Bristolian culture? Why is See No Evil then mentioned next? Is a street art festival that began in 2011 and seemingly ended by 2013 even notable enough for this article? If it is, why not place it with the bit on Banksy and other artists? Why are the capacities for different theatres listed in brackets, yet capacities for concert halls not? I did not expect such a disconnected passage to make it to FAC. - hahnchen 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and it now meets the FA criteria. It has previously undergone FAC twice; on the first occassion, in December 2014, it was barely looked at, while on the second in July 2015 it received one statement of support (from User:Johanna) and no oppositions, but unfortunately that wasn't enough for it to pass. Third time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator (if that may be permitted? If not, feel free to strike this out.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As mentioned by User:Midnightblueowl, I supported on the second FAC, and all my comments (mostly prose) were dealt with, so I will support again. To other reviewers—don't be fooled by its short length--it's a very nicely done article. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Outside my usual editing categories by a longshot, but no one should see a nomination die repeatedly for lack of attention:

Referencing

  • There's really no need for things like "J-FLAG editor" as an author. Some sources, especially some web sources, simply do not have an author byline. There's no need to disguise that.
    • A good point. I have made the change accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that Web Pro News is a reliable source. I believe it's an advertising-driven news aggregator with no listed editorial policy. On the other hand, I think this article may have been published elsewhere for the same reason; a version from a reliable source may be available.
    • I've had a look through Google and cannot find any other instance of this particular text. Thus, I do believe that it was originally written for Web Pro News and that that is the only site where this particular article may be found. This being the case, I would suggest that this website does provide original content and thus does constitute an RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The source of the Dan Littauer article appears to be styled as "LGBTQ Nation", rather than just "LGBT Nation" as currently referenced.
    • Well spotted! I have made the change accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have some misgivings about the Quality of Citizenship Jamaica press release. First, if it is retained, it does have an authorship byline. But second, I'm not sure that this is a statement whose inclusion respects WP:UNDUE; according to the organization's website, it's almost entirely operated by two individuals. Its website is a (heavily skinned) Wordpress blog. I don't want to belittle their efforts, but I'm not convinced that QCJ represents a significant viewpoint. On the other hand, the Lonely Planet guidebook to Jamaica lists both J-FLAG and QCP as relevant organizations, so perhaps this isn't problematic after all...?
    • As you say, QCJ have been mentioned in the Lonely Planet guidebook, but they have also been mentioned in press sources, including international press, as with this example or this one. Furthermore, while they do use a Wordpress blog they do also have an independent website that (as far as I can tell) has nothing to do with Wordpress here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely convinced this is a comprehensive review of the literature:
  • I've taken a look at the article and incorporated it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it worth including the passing mention given to Jones in a briefing by US Department of State Acting Assistant Secretary Uzra Zeya here, in the context of "International reaction", a topic otherwise addressed in the article only by LGBT rights groups?
  • That's a good reference, I have incorporated the information within it into the article at the appropriate juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This German-language book appears to place the murder of Jones into a wider context of events. Perhaps there's some background here worth mining?
  • There's nothing here post-May 2014:
  • I've added a quotebox to the article which contains a quote taken from this particular source. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reporting on the August 2015 gay pride celebration in Jamaica indicates some of the legacy of this murder, and provides a more recent "as of" date.
  • I've incorporated this source into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Other

  • I think the "Early life" section is inappropriately titled; not everything in this section applies to Jones's "early" life.
    • I've gone with "Jones' biography" but am of course open to any other suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Following up on that, the information buried in the footnote about terminology and choice of gender pronouns is not something that should be buried in a footnote.
    • I felt that the note was the best place for this particular information, given that it reflects a division in the way that Jones' gender identity has been perceived, and thus I didn't want to bring too much confusion into the lede itself. However, I am happy to discuss this issue further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You call J-FLAG "the country's only LGBT rights organization", but I don't think that's true. Despite my misgivings about the weight offered to Quality of Citizenship Jamaica, it also offers itself forward as a LGBT rights organization.
    • True; I have altered the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In general, I'm neutral regarding promotion here. This article's really light on background, for one thing. Sure, the context behind the "batty boy" insult is there for readers who follow the link, but there's no context given here. No indication that this event was one that actually got media attention, amidst an environment that Time in 2006 considered potentially "the most homophobic place on Earth" (and then the 2015 [follow-up article] that mentions Jones in passing via link). There are other media sources that place the event in a wider context of violence, too (I'm not 100% sold on the RS-status of that link, but, then again, Time linked to it, so...). And it's not original research to provide a contextual background; even sources you're already citing, like Palesh Ghosh, explicitly draw links between the murder and cultural elements like Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye". But all of that is at least a link away from the reader. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Squeamish Ossifrage; thus far, I have acted upon a number of them and believe that the article is definitely better as a result. A lot of your comments focus on the idea of expanding this article to offer a broader coverage of the problems faced by LGBT people in Jamaica. This was something that I was cautious about doing. On the one hand I tried to set the killing within its wider societal context, while at the other I didn't want to be accused of engaging in Original Research and Synthesis. I'm happy to add in a few further mentions of things like Buju Banton's song, but at the same time I am wary about overloading this article with too much background context. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have added a new sub-section on "Anti-LGBT sentiment in Jamaica" in which I have covered much of the background information that you believed to be deserving of inclusion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

King Æthelwulf of Wessex was the father of Alfred the Great, and one of the most successful and important Anglo-Saxon kings. The article has gone through thorough peer and A Class reviews. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • Extensive image check has been done during A-class review.
  • All images are PD or CC, with sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • Tweaked a few license tags (all PD, just minor clarifications) - OK.
  • Source information for map provided - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber on comprehensiveness and prose[edit]

Taking a look now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf was first recorded in 825. - comes across as fairly abrupt and needs some context. Maybe semicolon to next sentence?
destroying the long Mercian ascendancy over southern England. - "destroying" is a funny verb here (I keep thinking it should be with solid things...)...I'd go with "shattering", "disrupting", or even "ending"
"silver penny" - can this be linked somewhere?
Should Liber Vitae be italicised?
Æthelwulf's reputation among historians was low in the twentieth century. - I'd say either "poor reputation" or "low regard or esteem" - but not "low reputation"
I prefer the existing wording. "Poor reputation" to me suggests someone untrustworthy, which does not apply to Æthelwulf. Maybe see what other editors think? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough - a minor style issue anyway and not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

These are all minor and easiy fixable - looks on target for the bronze star...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Cas. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by GermanJoe[edit]

Only two for now (more later)

  • Wiki-links for counties - the article links the counties in "Laverstock in Wiltshire", "Steyning in Sussex", and "Carhampton in Somerset", but the same counties are not linked on first mention. Not sure, which handling is best (the towns are linked anyway) - but it should be consistent for all similar terms throughout the article.
  • The last lead paragraph mentions a drastic change in opinion about Æthelwulf as a ruler, but is quite vague about the actual reasons. To paraphrase a bit: the main article lists internal administration, foreign relations, and the adaption of new ideas among his strengths. Some of this background information should be summarized in the lead as well to explain this change in historians' views (the last lead para is short anyway and would benefit from a minor expansion). GermanJoe (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks better now with the additional details, thanks. I'll try to have a more thorough read "soon" (weekend or so). GermanJoe (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks Joe and Cas for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Some more minor points:

  • Family - "The second son, Æthelbald, is first recorded as a charter[d] witness in 841" -> link "charter" to Anglo-Saxon charters? This would also make the footnote redundant - a bit distracting here in the middle of a statement.
  • Thanks. I looked for a link but did not think to check Anglo-Saxon charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Early life - "...ending the long [Mercian ascendancy]" -> link to Mercian Supremacy (similar to lead)?
  • Ah. I see it was a red link because I put Mercian supremacy instead of Supremacy. Now corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decimation charters - "Susan Kelly described them as "one of the most controversial groups of Anglo-Saxon diplomas"" -> should have an immediate source. GermanJoe (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - very interesting article, detailed and thoroughly sourced. Some parts like the "Decimation Charters" cover complex sub-topics (at least for a layman like me). but the article does it best to present the information as clearly as possible. Suggestion: in the long run, when more analysis or details become available, information and research about those charters could be split and covered in a more specialized stand-alone article about those documents. GermanJoe (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. I will have a think about your suggestion. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review, and the article was in fine shape then. It has subsequently been polished and expanded further and certainly commands my support for promotion to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria handsomely. Two tiny queries: St. Bertin gets a full stop but St Peter, St Paul and St Neot don't; and "where it is less then the tenth part" is in a quote, but I'm just checking that the source has "then" as opposed to "than". That's my lot. A fine article: revisiting it has been a pleasure. Tim riley talk 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Tim, very helpful as always. I have deleted the stop - I don't know why I put it in as I was taught that there should be no stop when the last letter in the abbreviation is the last letter in the word being abbreviated. As to "then", I do not now have access to the source but I am sure it is correct. I have added a comma after "less" to make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course – sorry, that was just my misreading of the quote. Tim riley talk 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will have a look soon. Wondering if Anglo-Saxon (and other terms only linked in the intro) should be linked at first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Done thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Carolingian-style" Carolingian is never explained or linked. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As a non-native English speaker, words like debacement, numismatist, and decimation were unfamiliar in their context, and could perhaps need links.
I have linked debasement and numismatist. There is no suitable link for decimation (which is unfamiliar in its sense here to almost all native English speakers), but I have explained it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is the charter image under Pilgrimage to Rome and later life not in the former section, where it seems to belong?
I have moved the charter image. It is not one of the decimation charters, but that probably does not matter. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry yes I did. Thanks for the further input. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - All were minor issues, but glad they were addressed, nice work. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks FunkMonk. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "would not have expected their successes to yield permanent fruit. ... When Æthelwulf succeeded in 839": "successes" in the previous sentence may influence the reading of "succeeded". "succeeded to" something would be better.
  • Thanks very much Dan. I have reverted the change "Æthelwulf did not give his son the same power as his father had given him" to "this son" as I think it could imply that he was giving Æthelstan less power than he gave his other sons. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think I follow ... shouldn't it be "his sons", then? - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's complicated. Æthelwulf is not known to have appointed another King of Kent after Æthelstan died until he went on pilgrimage, so he seems to have given his surviving sons even less power until his absence from Wessex changed the whole situation and he had to give more. Maybe it is best just to replace "his son" with "Æthelstan", in spite of the repetition? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I commented at the peer review and I think the article is in fine shape, and easily worthy of featured status. A couple of minor points that don't affect my support:

  • The lead doesn't make it clear that the battles at Carhampton and Aclea were against the Vikings.
  • "granted ten hydes": I've always seen "hides" as the usual spelling; is the "y" now standard?
  • Changed. It is listed by OED as a variant spelling but I see I did spell it "hide" elsewhere. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is Michael Enright described as American, when the nationality of other historians is not given?
    • In the past editors have objected to me referring to each historian repetitiously as "historian x", so I left it out. Then an editor at A Class objected to me leaving it out. Describing him as American was part of my attempt to satisfy both views by introducing some variety to the descriptions. I am open to suggestions/advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
      If this is the result of other comments then I'll strike my comment. I think I'd leave out "American" myself, since it gives the impression that his nationality is relevant, but it's a judgement call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for your support Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nortonius[edit]

Support I too was involved in the earlier reviews, and likewise I have some minor comments to make that don't affect my support – I'm a bit pushed for time right now, but I am looking and making notes so here's this for now, more later:

In the lead:

  • The wikilink to Anglo-Saxon England now points to a redirect, since that article was moved by consensus to "History of Anglo-Saxon England" on 28 September. Of course there's WP:NOTBROKEN, but in this instance, for example if the link were being added now, I see no benefit in pointing to the redirect. Unless there's reason to think the article might ever be moved back...? Just a thought, ignore or dispute at your pleasure!
  • I was told off years ago for putting in a pipe when a redirect already exists. It is considered bad practice. I can track down the rule if you are interested. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I can imagine! It's just that in this instance the rule seems silly, as the redirect didn't already exist. As I said, ignore this point at your pleasure! Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I note Mike Christie's comment re battles, I was thinking the same. Danes might be specified, or the sentence with the battles and the preceding one might be run together with "... reign: in 843 ...".
  • Done.
  • Was Æthelwulf the sole operator in his daughter's marriage to Burgred? If so that might be explained in the appropriate place, otherwise "In 853 his daughter Æthelswith was married to King Burgred ..." might be more accurate.
  • Changed. Personally, I see no objection as a marriage then would have been a political alliance by the father, but I see that historians generally prefer your wording.
I do get the (presumably) political aspect of the marriage but I prefer the accuracy of the changed version, thanks for doing that. I don't see why it couldn't say "Æthelswith was married to King Burgred" – I think it would also fit, and remove any suggestion that romance played a part – heaven forbid! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
How do you know that romance did not play a part? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't – it's just that I think to modern eyes "X married Y" carries a presumption of romance and happy families. We can't know either way. Whereas to my eyes "X was married to Y", albeit wordier, is a simpler statement of fact in that it presumes nothing at all. Of course YMMV. Nortonius (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have done a completely unscientific survey of the articles on the Norman kings (excluding William II) and "married" and "was married" seem to be used randomly, with one or two "father married his daughter to", and a majority for "x married y". I do not see the implication you find in the expression. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, I'll settle for your unscientific survey! Nortonius (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Would ... leaving the west in his son's hands be clearer as "in his son Æthelbald's hands", since there's talk of more than one son?
  • About Æthelwulf's "low" reputation, per Cas Liber I think "poor" fits better, especially since exactly why is explained in the same sentence.

Background:

  • Following Offa's death, King Coenwulf of Mercia (796–821) maintained Mercian power: would "dominance" be better? At this point I think saying only "power" begs the question of what this was.
  • Given the discussion of relationships here, I find myself wondering who Baldred was: WP doesn't seem to know, but I expect someone has offered an opinion. For example Hasted has him driven "across the Thames into the northern parts",[2] so Mercian seems a reasonable guess; but K.P. Witney, The Kingdom of Kent, 1982, pp. 226–7 says that "[t]he probability is that Baldred ... was an ealdorman, perhaps from Sussex," and describes him as an "adventurer"! Witney's not great, I wonder if there's anything better or more recent. Just a word or two here would be good I think, if a source can be found. Even if it's just e.g. "of unknown provenance".
  • He has a brief entry in ODNB by Kelly, who describes him as a "very obscure figure", and speculates that he may have been a relative of Beornwulf as both their names started with B. I do not think there is anything which can usefully be said about him which is relevant to Æthelwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just think ending the sentence with merely "a sub-king of Kent, Baldred" looks a bit, well, bald – but no biggie. Nortonius (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but the same applies to many other people mentioned, and explaining them all would bloat the article with details not specifically relevant to Æthelwulf. I think it is better to rely on the link for people who want to know more. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, that's fine. Nortonius (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • England had suffered Viking raids in the late eighth century, but there were no attacks between 794 and 835: for accuracy, might this be better as something like "but there were no attacks reported between 794 and 835"?

Family:

  • I think Judith needs naming in the (currently) final sentence of this section, beginning "There were no children from this second marriage ...", in place of "she".

Early life:

  • Unlike their Mercian predecessors, ... Æthelwulf and his father cultivated local support, governing through Kentish ealdormen, and promoting their interests. Is there a consensus in the sources – or any suggestion – that Egbert and Æthelwulf's Kentish connections made them more attractive as rulers in Kent? Or less objectionable. If so, that might be made explicit.
  • Changed to "and his father successfully cultivated local support by governing through Kentish ealdormen and promoting their interests." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • ... the same condition is specified in a Winchester charter: I would like to see either the charter specified, if only by a ref, or a change to "a charter preserved at Winchester" followed by a ref. I'm assuming that's the case, not knowing which charter is concerned...?
  • Corrected to charter in favour of the see of Winchester and ref for charter added. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • ... Kentish monasteries chose Æthelwulf as their lord, and he undertook that after his death, they would have freedom to elect their heads: I think there's either one comma too many there or one too few – I'm looking at the one in "death, they", which I think ought either to go or be paired with one in "that after".
  • Egbert's conquests brought him wealth far greater than his predecessors had enjoyed ... The wealth of the West Saxon kings was also greatly increased by the conquest of south-east England ...: an unintentional bit of duplication, or...?
  • Repetition deleted.
  • The sentence about fatalism seems a bit throw-away to me, and I wonder, is it a view that's held widely these days? I seem to remember noticing it being added to the article, apologies for not bringing it up before; but it is a bit of a new one on me. I'm nowhere near as in touch with current thinking as I'd like to be, but this fatalism doesn't seem to have affected Æthelwulf's grandson Edward the Elder, or his great-grandson Æthelstan. Does it deserve the prominence it's given here, in closing the section? Otherwise this is the kind of thing I'd put in a footnote, suitably qualified.
  • This is a difficult one on a subject I know nothing about. It is from a leading Anglo-Saxonist, Richard Abels, in 1998, and Anglo-Saxon fatalism is discussed elsewhere, for example at [3]. The notion of wyrd, fate, is discussed in Pratt's The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great, which I will have to read some day. I do not think we know enough to say that it did not affect Edward and Æthelstan. It certainly did not prevent them acting effectively, but then the fatalism of their pagan forebears did not either. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Then, if in doubt, I would leave it out, or put it in a footnote: "acting effectively" is what I had in mind regarding Edward and Æthelstan, and is what seems most pertinent here; and the notion seems to me at any rate more appropriate for a broader article on Anglo-Saxon kingship than for this bio. Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
OK I have taken it out. I think it is an interesting point but speculative as worded. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

King of Wessex:

  • Towards the end of the section, two close occurrences of "bookland": the first time this word crops up it is linked, but an explanation is held over to the next sentence. I'd be inclined to simplify this by changing to "... on 26 December 846 he made a large grant of land to himself in South Hams in west Devon. He thus changed the estate from royal demesne, which he was obliged to pass on to his successor as king, to bookland, which could be transferred as the owner pleased ..."

Viking threat:

  • At the Battle of Aclea, might it be better to say "Æthelwulf and his son Æthelbald", partly because Æthelbald hasn't been mentioned for a while, and partly because there are several occurrences of that name around that time (although most may represent the same man)?[4]
  • About Ealdorman Alhhere, is he not identical with the ealdorman "Ealhhere of Kent" who was killed by Vikings in 853? My copy of the ASC has "Ealhhere" under 850 and 853 (Garmonsway, 1972). PASE has no record of an "Alhhere", but has "Ealhhere" fighting a great army and capturing ships at Sandwich and fighting alongside Huda against a pagan army on Thanet.[5]
  • Ahem. Thanks for picking up that error. Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Coinage:

  • The silver penny was almost the only coin used in middle and later Anglo-Saxon England: I think this sentence needs re-casting somehow, as the locative "middle [Anglo-Saxon England]" conflicts with the chronological "later Anglo-Saxon England". Maybe something like "The silver penny was almost the only coin used in the mid- and later Anglo-Saxon period in England".
  • I do not see what is wrong with it. In the context it is clear that middle is being used in a chronological sense, as in Middle Ages. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I did wonder myself – one can be "in the middle of [doing] something", which obviously is primarily chronological (or sequential), but it's a bit colloquial (Cambridge Dictionaries Online has it under "idioms"[6]) and every other dictionary definition I've seen is locative. Remember though that I'm insisting on nothing here! Nortonius (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There were four main phases of the coinage distinguishable at both mints ...: I think it would help lead the reader if "during Æthelwulf's reign" were tacked onto the end of that.
  • I'm a bit confused by this sentence: In about 848 both mints switched to a common design known as Dor¯b¯/Cant – the characters "Dor¯b¯" on the obverse of these coins indicates either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), and "Cant", referring to Canterbury, appeared on the reverse. Does "Cant" always appear on the reverse in this series? I'd be inclined to change the sentence to "In about 848 both mints switched to a common design known as Dor¯b¯/Cant – the characters "Dor¯b¯" appeared on the obverse of these coins, indicating either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), and "Cant", referring to Canterbury, appeared on the reverse." Otherwise I think it needs clarifying.
  • Mike Christie can you help with this? I do not have access to the source now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    Per the source "Cant" was always on the reverse. I think Nortonius's phrasing is an improvement, but it's also a bit closer to the source -- this is one of those cases where it's very hard to paraphrase far from the original wording. What the source says is "A new non-portrait coinage was issued with DOR¯B¯, for either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), in the obverse field and CANT (Kent) in the reverse ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Duh, silly me – "Cant" for Kent, not Canterbury! Well, I did say I was confused... Agreed re the difficulty in paraphrasing, I wonder if something like the following would be adequately varied: "the obverse was marked with "Dor¯b¯", which could represent both Dorobernia (Canterbury) and Dorobrevia (Rochester), while the reverse was marked with "Cant" (Kent)." Although I'm sure Dudley will have his own thoughts on that. Nortonius (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually it looks like the confusion is my fault -- the confusion of Kent and Canterbury is in the current text, and I believe I wrote that sentence; must have been a moment of inattention on my part. Sorry about that. How about just switching "Canterbury" to "Kent" in the existing sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I think it would then make perfect sense! Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you or Mike could make the correction as you understand the problem? I might get it wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Move the link for "debasement" to the earlier occurrence of "debased" (in the same sentence)?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would add "under Æthelwulf's reign" to the end of the sentence introducing the Middle Temple hoard, again to help the reader.

Decimation charters:

  • The "decimation charters" are divided by Susan Kelly into four groups: can we lose the scare quotes there, as the phrase appears in scare quotes in the first sentence in this section?
  • Scare quotes again for second and subsequent occurrences of "first decimation" and "second decimation" – lose them?
  • Historians always distinguish the terms in some way, quotes or capitalisation or both, and I think rightly as signalling that it is a special term. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Per your complaint below (with which I completely agree), could you justify capitalising here, instead of the scare quotes? If not then stay with the scare quotes by all means, it's just that I've been told off for using too many of them myself in the past. Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I would agree in preferring capitalisation to quotes but is it against Wikipedia rules? Dank can you advise? on this - also on "one of the most perplexing problems", and Liber Vitae below. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
If Decimation is "unfamiliar in its sense here to almost all native English speakers", then either capitalize it as a proper noun (if your sources support capitalization), or don't use it. I'd rewrite "... one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic" as one of the "most perplexing problems" in the study of ninth-century charters. No opinion on Liber Vitae. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Under Keynes' first alternative there is a second explanation of the significance of "booking" land: I think that's perfectly reasonable here, especially since "folkland" crops up here for the first time; but I think it could healthily lose "... and could be disposed of freely by the owner. "Booking" land thus converted it by charter from folkland to bookland."
  • I am not convinced on this. The earlier explanation was in a different context and I think it is helpful to remind the reader of it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry – I suspect I was just getting a sense of déjà vu there having looked at the article so closely, looking again today it looks fine to me. Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the decimation Æthelwulf may have conveyed royal folkland by charter to become the bookland: "the bookland", or just "bookland"?
  • For example under Keynes' second alternative, scare quotes could be lost from every instance of "booking", since the first occurrence of the word (also in this section) does without them.
  • [Æthelwulf] displayed a sense of dynastic insecurity evident in his father's generosity towards the Kentish church in 838: should that be "also evident", since Æthelwulf's sense of dynastic insecurity presumably didn't drive Egbert's generosity in 838?
  • Another hyphen needed in "mid-twentieth century", in reference to Eric John?
  • Done. (There is far too much ugly hyphenation in Wikipedia and not enough helpful capitalisation!)
  • According to Pratt: no first name for the first occurrence of this source?
  • Added.
  • In the quotation from Kelly about 844, I would replace the ellipsis with "[and]" to make it grammatical.
  • "... one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic" (study of charters): I remember that the meaning of "diplomatic" was an issue in one of the earlier reviews, I just find "(study of charters)" a bit inelegant, and would ordinarily want to avoid those brackets. Would something like "... diplomatic", or the study of charters" be better?
  • I agree that the brackets are inelegant, but I think "or" might be misunderstood as an alternative rather than an explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Pilgrimage to Rome and later life:

  • Should "Liber Vitae" be in italics, given that the link is to a page that (barely) describes this type of book, rather than to a page for the particular Liber Vitae that is mentioned? The italics led me to expect the latter. If the italics arose from the mention of the book being in Latin, I would suggest removing the italics and having scare quotes instead. My own inclination would be to say the same for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle when referring to the varying manuscripts, as is the case later in the same sentence, rather than to a published volume such as Garmonsway's. But I know that I seem to be out of step with most on that, both on WP and elsewhere!
  • Well on that one I agree with what I understand to be Wikipedia practice. I think italics are a helpful signal to the reader that a book or manuscript is being referred to.
  • On his way back from Rome Æthelwulf stayed with King Charles the Bald ...: "stayed once more with King Charles the Bald"?
  • I remember that the identity of "Kent and the south-east" came up in an earlier review, but I've just noticed there is now a footnote in this section, currently "p", that says "The sub-kingdom of Kent included Essex, Sussex and Surrey." I wonder if that shouldn't be moved to an earlier position in the article, and possibly then duplicated as necessary; or perhaps it might be dispensed with entirely if that information, with its ref, were moved into the body of the article. For example, under "Early life", it might be worked into the sentence "Æthelwulf was descended from kings of Kent, and he was sub-king of Kent and the south-eastern provinces of Surrey, Sussex and Essex, which were included in the sub-kingdom, until he inherited the throne of Wessex in 839."
  • Done - and "south-eastern provinces" deleted as it seems superfluous with the revised wording.Dudley Miles (talk)

King Æthelwulf's ring:

  • ... whereas the art historian David Wilson ...: a fairly trivial point, but would "whereas" not be better as "and", since the points made by Nelson and Wilson seem to be complementary rather than conflicting?
  • I do not see them as complementary. Webster and Nelson describe them as typical 9C, Wilson as a throwback to the pagan period. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well it's still a fairly trivial matter, and again it's up to you; but as I see it Webster confirms that the ring is of the 9th century; Nelson agrees and emphasises that successful kingship in the 9th century encompassed Æthelwulf's gift of a ring "to a brawny follower"; and Wilson reminds us that it was ever thus among the Anglo-Saxons in England. A successful Anglo-Saxon king had to be a "good lord", pagan or otherwise, and the giving of rings and other treasure was an essential practice. I honestly don't see the conflict. Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Historiography:

  • Early medieval writers, especially Asser, emphasise his religiosity, and his preference for consensus seen in the concessions made to avert a civil war on his return from Rome: I would move the third comma to follow "consensus".

Nortonius (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for your support Nortonius. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your very full and helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem! More to come today I expect... Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

- spotchecks not done

  • Pages for Nelson 2004c?
  • This came up at A Class. I was asked to add page numbers to the bibliography but I forgot. Now done, with help of London Library staff who kindly checked sources I do not have now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest italicizing Electronic Sawyer as a work title
  • Yorke 1995: all other Leicester University Press refs give Leicester as the location - is London correct here?
  • Yes. in 1995 Leicester University Press was an imprint of Cassell Publishers of London. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Have watched this from the ditch for a few months, and made (very) minor ce's along the way. A fine achievement, drawn from broad sources of knowledge. Happy to see this here. Ceoil (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Ceoil. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Query for reviewers[edit]

GermanJoe has suggested that the discussion of the Decimation Charters should be a separate article. This seems to me a good idea. I could create King Æthelwulf's Decimation Charters with a summary in this article. Do other reviewers agree and, if so, would it be better to make the change now or wait until the review has finished? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to wait; its probably better that the review is of the article post spin out. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
If you can do it PDQ then I would agree, otherwise I think this article is in fine shape and it would be a shame to risk disrupting the review unnecessarily. Might I suggest "Decimation charters of King Æthelwulf", since the charters would be the subject of the article rather than the king? Just another thought. Nortonius (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about timing; create the new article first, and once that's done adjust this article to suit. If this article has passed FAC by that time I'm sure you won't be hurting it by trimming just that section, and there's always FAR in the unlikely event that anyone thinks the article has really suffered from the change. I agree with Nortonius on the article name, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It's only a few days in the nomination, so a quick limited re-organization of 1 section would work. Present reviewers will just have to add a small note, that the revised version is still OK afterwards. The less stressful approach for you as editor would probably be to wait until FA-closure - but that's completely up to you. Both approaches should be fine. GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all. I will start working on it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
What is the concern? There doesn't seem to be a size issue. It seems GJ suggested a split only once more detail is added about the charters? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Well an editor commented at A Class that he did not think that a prolonged discussion of different editors' views on the decimation charters was suitable for a biography article, and I assumed that Joe was tactfully saying the same thing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
At the moment it's a judgement call, but if you try writing the separate article and discover there's not enough material for a standalone article, then it's clear the material you have should stay here. If you find you can expand it significantly (which I am sure will be the case) there's a better argument for making the current section more concise. I don't think the article is unbalanced as things stand, but I think a sub-article, and some summarization at this article's level, would be a further improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It is possible that I could expand it, but I think the subject is already covered adequately and I would much rather carry on with my current projects than re-visit the decimation charters. If reviewers think the article is OK as it is, I will abandon the separate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, don't think a split is necessary at this point. If someone wants to make a more detailed sub-article, they should of course be free to do so, but I don't think that should have any consequence for this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify: The suggestion was a suggestion for further development "in the long run" (literally, no tact intended ;) ). So the current acticle version is certainly FA-worthy as is. Sorry, if that side note caused any confusion. GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again to all. I am glad to have clarified that reviewers are not unhappy with the section. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Operation Copperhead[edit]

Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So, after a bit of a hiatus, I'm back into the MILHIST articles... This is an A-Class article from a couple of years ago, that has only needed minor improvements since (It's complete & stable). It's one of my favourite WW2 deception stories, completely off the wall and probably had limited use - but it has the sort of drama and panache you expect of wartime secret ops! Errant (chat!) 15:12, 12 October 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) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak (good idea) & support :) --Errant (chat!) 07:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map size
  • File:Clifton_James001.jpg: can you explain why we believe this is a UK government work, if the author is unknown? The source given doesn't suggest that
  • File:Bernard_Law_Montgomery.jpg: source link is dead, file is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've scaled up the map & replaced the Montgomery image with a better one. Hunting for a better source for the other now. --Errant (chat!) 11:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: sadly I can't source that image for now! I've replaced it with the map image, which is consistent with the other articles I've written in this series :) Thanks for the review! --Errant (chat!) 21:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - Very well written. From the bibliography, refs 1 & 3 (National Archives & Howard) are not used - place in further reading. I'm not seeing much else to complain about from a single read through. Re comprehensiveness, the Polish article is FA and about the same size. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note, the article would benefit greatly if a licence was found for Clifton_James001.jpg Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Very happy to say!! I've not be able to source that image (though I would be shocked if it wasn't Crown Copyright I simply can't find it at the National Archives) I HAVE managed to find another pic that is PD-UK :D Now added to article. --Errant (chat!) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Baryonyx[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Baryonyx is a well-known dinosaur, and one of the best preserved animals of its kind from the UK. It is also the first dinosaur that showed direct evidence of having eaten fish, and its physical features were considered very unusual at the time it was discovered. I have summarised most of the scientific literature about the animal, and presented both sides of various controversies surrounding it. It is also the first dinosaur of its kind (spinosaurid) to have its article nominated for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose....as a wikiproject dinosaurs member though I haven't really edited this article. I reviewed this at GAN and tried to be as nitpicky as possible. I think we're there and if not it's pretty close. However my familiarity with the stuff might mean I miss accessibility issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by IJReid[edit]

I agree with Casliber that the quality of the article Is really excellent, but I have noticed a few things that could use correcting. IJReid discuss 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • "It may also have been an active predator of larger prey and a scavenger, as it also contained bones of a juvenile Iguanodon" also is redundant.
Which one? Both, or the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
First. How about "It may have been an active predator as well, as ..." IJReid discuss 00:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the reason for the first "also" is to underline that it did not only eat fish, but may also have actively hunted larger prey. Also because it is not sure whether the Iguanodon was hunted or scavenged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yah I guess, leave it as is then. IJReid discuss 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps others will bring it up... FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "A previous estimate was 10 m (32 ft)" seems a little short, any info on when? maybe merge with previous sentence?
Added year. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "...of the dentary of the mandible..." of the is redundant, maybe "...of the dentary bone, in the mandible..."
Replaced with "in". FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The alveoli of the dentary..." should be "The alveoli of the remainder of the dentary..." as the rosette was part of the dentary.
Doesn't the rest of the sentence explain this: ", but the first four were larger than the rest" First four: those in the rosette.
I'd move this sentence above the detail on the rosette then, so it doesn't break up the flow. IJReid discuss 03:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I've rejigged the sentence, but it is placed where it is because the prior text is about alveolus size. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Link United Kingdom as first mention.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would change mentions of Britain to United Kingdom or vice versa to make it more standard.
UK. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Except for the mid neck vertebrae, all the skeletal elements of this specimen are also represented in holotype NHM R9951" the wording here makes it seem like the Iberian remains are more complete, with the holotype lacking mid-neck vertebrae. Is this correct?
Other way around, will try to reword... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Good. IJReid discuss 01:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • To be consistent, link authors full names at first mention (eg. Buffetaut)
He doesn't appear to have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
In that situation I would simply have the full name, but not a link. IJReid discuss 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, was there already. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That is it. This is an excellent article and all my queries are very minor. IJReid  discuss 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • One more thing, who is this "Angela" mentioned in Paleobiology? IJReid discuss 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Heh, fixed! Angela is Milner, but it should say Charig... FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Good, Support from me now. IJReid discuss 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

Using this version for numbering:

  • Some author initials are spaced (FN 7 and others) and some are unspaced (FN 21) in the references - choose one and align them all
Found three without spaces, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 1...abbreviation gone crazy?
Heh, was copied from another page, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FN 22 - material faithful to source.

2015 Vuelta a España[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 Vuelta a España, one of the three most important races in road cycling. It is a three-week race where riders have to deal with hot weather and the mountainous terrain of any cycling race. The race was notable for all the four top finishers in the 2015 Tour de France starting; none of them finished on the podium in the Vuelta. The race was close and competitive throughout and was decided on the final climbs on the penultimate day. This article is relatively short because it has been split out into two articles describing the stages themselves; it's just been through a useful peer review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

To preface this, my time is very limited on Wikipedia, but these are a few things that I noticed about the article in a quick glance over it:

  • "These included Caja Rural-Seguros RGA, the only Spanish-registered Professional Continental team. Two French teams, Cofidis and Team Europcar, were also invited. MTN-Qhubeka were invited for the second consecutive year after also securing their first ever entry into the Tour de France. The final team to be invited was Colombia." Each sentence should be sourced, just because the information within it could be challenged.
    • After reading through more of the prose from the favorites section, I'd say go through the prose and cite after each sentence just to be sage - I know this is probably annoying to hear, but it will help as the review goes on longer as reviewers won't have to challenge you on whether it happened and whatnot.
  • Include the two-three sentence body of text just below the team list in the block of text above. It just looks smoother that way in my opinion
  • I would remove the three sub sections in the race overview section
  • Move the part about the first stage being controversial in the route and stages section in its own paragraph

I didn't really have much more time to give the text a thorough read through, but I hope this helps out. I'll try and check this out next time I'm free and able to get on here. Great start. Disc Wheel (T + C) 13:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Disc Wheel. I have done all the above except adding citations after every sentence. I will go back and have another look at citation density; I have attempted to follow WP:CITEDENSE closely. Relentlessly (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Almost all of it, you forgot to remove the part about the route of the team trial controversy to the route and stages section. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, Disc Wheel, I misunderstood what you meant. I've done it now, and you're right: it's an improvement. Relentlessly (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments
  • One thing that jumps out at me is the Classification leadership by stage table. The colours are pretty, but unfortunately don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. The contrast between the background colour and the foreground text colour need to meet WCAG 2.0's AA level; the pastel colours used in most of the table are fine, with the exception of the salmon, which could be lightened, but the darker Final colour at the bottom is a problem for all but the "lightskyblue" and the "offwhite". (Checked with the Colour Contrast Checker). My suggestion would be to just remove the colour entirely. It does add a "wow" to the page, but I think the information is conveyed just as well without it. I'll take a closer look at the rest of the article shortly. Harrias talk 18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Harrias, thanks for this. I've adjusted the colours. Several were purely decorative, so I've ditched them. The others are actually the colours of the jerseys, so I'd like to keep them. I've adjusted both background and foreground colours. I'm no expert, but I think they're now compliant. What do you think? Relentlessly (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arnold Bax[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Following in the footsteps of the featured articles on the English British composers Britten, Delius, Elgar, Holst, Stanford, Tippett, Walton and Warlock, this article on their colleague and contemporary, Bax, is now a candidate for the FA pantheon. It has had the benefit of a thorough peer review, and I hope will be judged to meet the FA criteria. I found Bax an interesting figure to write about, and, with any luck, readers may find him interesting to read about. – Tim riley talk 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Support—had my say at PR. A solid FA in my view and a great read. Well done Tim on yet another excellent piece of work on a subject I had no idea about. (Though I must protest—I think Stanford was Irish.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Aaargh! Quite true. And me with a name like Riley! Now remedied. Thank you for your support, sir! Tim riley talk 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - Another happy traveller from the PR. A interesting and informative read that covers the criteria for FA as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Support As above, a quality, concise article, well-deserving of FA status. I wish I could keep the Sinatra article to this length!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to SchroCat and Dr B for valuable input at PR and for support here. I am most grateful. Tim riley talk 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


Comments from Midnightblueowl:

  • Why do we have quote boxes that are different colours in this article? Surely, these should be standardised? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Practice varies on this. I could point you to FAs with different coloured boxes and others with a single colour. I chose the green as appropriate for the two Irish quotes. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Should not a link to classical music be somehow incorporated into the lede? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I think as we mention symphonies etc the context is clear. "Classical music" is a misleading term in any case: properly used it means music between the baroque and romantic eras, long before Bax's time. As some people use it in the technical sense and others use it as a catch-all term it is safer to avoid it. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - I did not know that about classical music. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lede we state that Streatham was a London suburb; in the "Early Years" section we say its in Surrey. This needs to be sorted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Both are correct. London in those days was, administratively, only the City of London (this was before the creation of the county of London in 1889). None of London's suburbs, and indeed not even the West End, were technically in London.The suburb Streatham was in Surrey. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I think that we could still be clearer here. Of course, the borders of London have changed much over time but I think that we should state Surrey in both cases, or London in both cases, or provide greater explanation in the article text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Rather than saying "Parry, Stanford, Vaughan Williams and Holst;[7] Sullivan and Elgar stood aloof," should we not provide their full names and make it clear that these were composers of classical music? Always assume that the reader knows next to nothing about the subject and won't be familiar with the identity of such individuals. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • We usually just give surnames for notable composers, rather as we don't normally find it necessary to give Shakespeare his William or (contrariwise) Rembrandt his van Rijn or Michelangelo his Buonarroti. It reduces the clutter, and it is clear from the context here that these are composers, as clicking on the links will confirm for anyone moved to do so. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bax moved on to the Royal Academy of Music," - where is this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Added location at first mention. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There are terms like "Irish dialect" and "Victorian" used in the initial section that should probably have links. After all, the term "Victorian" has various different meanings depending on context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We mention that in 1910 he entered Russia. Can we check to see if he did actually enter Russia itself, or whether the term Russian Empire would be more appropriate here; it seems that he was pursuing a Ukrainian woman and wrote music about Ukraine, so it could perhaps be that he spent all his time within Ukraine rather than Russia. Clarification on this point would be most welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Russia certainly - he went to St Petersburg, where he fell in love with ballet - but he also went to Ukraine, and Russian Empire would be perfectly acceptable. I've linked to it. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, my paternal forebears came to England from a small town in what is now Ukraine just a few years before this—but so far as I know, based on family papers and the like, they always referred to having come from Russia. My point is that there wasn't such a great distinction in those days between what would today be called Russia and what would today be called Ukraine. (At least according to the Russians, the word "Ukraina" comes from an old Slavic word, okraina, meaning "outskirts" or "borderland"—the implication being fairly obvious. That's the main reason the favoured wording in English used to be "the Ukraine", but isn't anymore now it's become independent from Russia.) Sorry, tangent over. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It's true that the division between Ukraine and Russia was certainly a lot blurrier in the past then it is today. It was made all the more so by the fact that throughout the era of the Russian Empire, there were large numbers of ethnically/linguistically Russian folk living within the area of modern Ukraine (and of course, that continues to some extent today). However, Cliftonian, might it be the case that your ancestors were not actually Ukrainians but Russians who had lived in Ukraine during the era of the Empire? That might explain why they were more willing to describe "Russia" as their homeland? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, Midnightblueowl, I didn't mean to raise an argument—I just thought people might find the brief tangent interesting. Regarding my forebears, one strand of them do seem to have had some reasonably well-off relatives in the Russian metropole including an architect and, at least according to family legend, a tailor to the Tsar. However my direct patrilineal predecessors are shrouded in mystery. The main fact about them that endures in the family memory is that my great-grandfather was one of 22 children—every single one a boy. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I worry that terms like "well-to-do" are too colloquially British and thus might not be particularly accessible to an international readership; would something like "wealthy" be preferable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I've done a swift check, courtesy of the Oxford Dictionaries, and the phrase is in use in American, Australian, Canadian, Indian and Irish English, so I think we're all right. The phrase is, I think, preferable to "wealthy", which is a rather genteel synonym for the plain "rich". "Affluent" would work here, but I think "well-to-do" is better. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "mixed with George William Russell and his associates"; who is Russell? A fellow composer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • A literary bod. I've expanded. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Vaughan Williams is linked to twice in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • So he is! Unlinked the second incidence. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is nicely written, and while I am not personally keen on the form of referencing used, it seems apparent that a nice variety of appropriate citations have been included. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your contributions. All actioned or explained as above. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tim. I'm happy to express my Support for this article now. Well done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
And thank you, too, for your input at PR and above and your support here. Tim riley talk 07:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

Support Tim riley, I've just finished engaging in a review of your article and I assess it to exceed Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is indeed well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I find that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media used in the article is properly licensed, except for perhaps the main image and the image of Harriet Cohen, which are both in the Public Domain in the US, but may need additional documentation of their license status in the UK and elsewhere. I'll let Nikkimaria weigh in on that one. Otherwise, I concur with the comments and assessments of SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, and Cliftonian. I can find no other aspects of this article that would preclude it from achieving Featured Article status. Congratulations on a another job well done, Mr. Riley! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Your support is most welcome. Tim riley talk 16:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You are quite welcome Tim riley; it was a privilege. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I don't know if it suffices for present purposes, but a reviewer at PR kindly added an image review there. The images remain as they were then. Tim riley talk 11:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support had my say at the PR. Very worthy article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your v. helpful input at PR and for your support here. Tim riley talk 16:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Support: Late on parade, but at least I'm giving you a sources review (see below). And I have just a couple of points outstanding from my peer review

  • There still seems to be overemphasis on the year 1919, in relation to Mr Evans. Thus we have: "In a study of Bax in 1919 his friend and confidante, the critic Edwin Evans...", followed later by "Writing in 1919, Evans suggested..." and later still, "In his 1919 overview of Bax's earlier chamber works, Evans identifies..." (In the last of these, Evans is suddenly in the present tense, which you may want to fix). Is it really necessary to state the year each time Evans's writings are mentioned? No other years are associated with Evans.
    • Quite so. Now pruned from three to one datings. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Foreman, having been just a surname in the many mentions since his introduction, suddenly becomes "Lewis Foreman" again in the last paragraph of the "Neglect and Revival" section.
    • So he does. Now trimmed. Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

These minor niggles don't at all detract from the high quality of this biography which provides an excellent rounded picture of this neglected figure. Until now, I've only known two things about Bax: Tintagel, and his position as joint holder (with Cesar Cui) of the shortest surname of any recognised "classical" composer – now you'll probably tell me there's an Albanian miniaturist called Enver Ug. Ah, well.... Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 24: needs a "subscription" template
    • Indeed. And now done. Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ref 88: "Who was Who" should have the same subscription tag as ODNB
    • Done, though with some misgivings: a link in what appears on the page when one uses that template takes the reader to this page: confusing for anyone following up a Who Was Who rather than an ODNB reference, I think. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Sources list, is it "Scholar Press" or "Scolar Press"? See Bax 1992 and Foreman 1983.
    • The latter, now I check. Now amended.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate reliability, and formatting is consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am most grateful for your suggestions at PR and above, for your source review, and for your support. I'm sure the biliteral Bo would join me in offering thanks, though for overall brevity Tan Dun beats her. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why are there no music samples in the Bax article or most of the other 20th century composers listed in the FAC blurb? - hahnchen 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If you can come up with any admissible free-use examples I'll be thrilled to add them. Copyright makes such things very rare, and I have found none for Bax. Tim riley talk 19:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The English language Wikipedia allows for non-free content in these cases. Other music biographies such as Jimi Hendrix contain non-free samples. Some of the composer biographies linked above include non-free content such as File:Tippett old age.jpg, which basically says that a picture of Michael Tippett's face is more important than his work. - hahnchen 19:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Interesting. It would be excellent if you can find suitable additions and add them. Tim riley talk 20:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Smooth toadfish[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This article got a detailed GA review. It's not very big so am confident I can deal with issues promptly. I scoured everything I could for info, so gaps reflect gaps in real knowledge....have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

NB: wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly


With all this done, I'm happy to support. (I have a similar eagerness for ablative absolutes and have to proof-read everything I write to remove them. What Cicero did to me...) Relentlessly (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "This confusion in scientific literature with the closely related common toadfish" But the previous sentence does not mention such a confusion, only that the fish was recorded again by other writers? FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have rejigged thusly. is that clearer? The original info is on page 10 and 11 of this monograph Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "in the collection of Alexandre Brongniart" Present him?
descriptor added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "published the species as Aphanacanthe reticulatus... in the new genus Aphanacanthe" Seems a bit repetitive, perhaps it could be stated that the genus was new without naming it again?
Ok, I tried this, flow ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "and gave it the combination Spheroides glaber" perhaps link Combinatio nova?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "With a total length of anywhere from 3 to 16 cm" Are both adult sizes?
well...yeah, sort of. Fish gradually grow all their lives so fish that are to all intents and purposes mature and capable of breeding can be these sizes. Most I have seen are at the smaller end of this range... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe add "total adult length"? FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "adnate" Explain.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "the reticulated pattern continues upper side (lateral) body of the fish" on the upper side of the body?
yes - rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Smooth toadfish grow larger as they grow older" Seems like a given, but do you mean grow even after reaching adulthood/as long as they live?
yes - they grow steadily larger throughout their life. Shall I add "steadily"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as it it clear that it is past adulthood. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Since confusion with the common toadfish is emphasised, perhaps mention the differences between the two?
I did in the last line of the description section. have added a word to clarify they look similar. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What are the spines for, when they are always within the skin?
for toadfish/pufferfish, spines are defensive. No idea why they have devolved in this species and seen nothing written on it. Given they are dangerously poisonous, probably unnecessary... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "However, its lack of spines makes it easier to handle" Easier than what?
than other toadfish - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - that's all I had to say, nice article! FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Cas Liber, I completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it most certainly meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I assess that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media used in this article is properly licensed, and the standard captioning works well. While I'm a proponent of Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, this is only suggested and not a requirement at FAC. Also per WP:DUPLINK, Tasmania can be de-linked in the "Distribution and habitat" section, seagrass can be de-linked in the "Conservation" subsection, and gonads can be de-linked in the "Feeding" section. Otherwise, I concur with the comments and assessments of FunkMonk and Relentlessly above. I can find no other aspects of the article that would inhibit this article's progression to Featured Article status. I commend you on your hard work on this article, and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
suggested links delinked. thx for support... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Cas Liber, you are quite welcome, and once again, job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Certainly not very big but that is not a criterion for FA. I believe the article is pretty comprehensive and covers possibly everything that should be for an article to be an FA. It's an excellent article, satisfying other criteria. A trivial comment: I have seen most of the alt texts of images having full stops at the end. Also, the first letter starts with a uppercase one. However, that is not mandatory and I leave it on you whether to resolve or not. Otherwise, as I said above, it meets FA criteria. Great job! -- Frankie talk 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I capped and full-stopped them as I turned the last two into sentences as well...first one was but I forgot. good catch. thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Fredlyfish4[edit]

  • You mention tetrodotoxin in the lead and once thereafter. Since this chemical is named for this family, and you specifically mention its effects on humans, I think it is worth mentioning both that this chemical is found in this family and that it is named for it.
found and added some general material. yikes, didn't see the naming bit... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of "two small nipple-like structures." Stating it this way could refer to appearance or function, so you should change it to nipple-like in appearance or function or maybe find a better way of stating this.
How 'bout "nipple-shaped"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sydney is mentioned a few times, so link to it once. Just in case there are people who don't know what you're referring to.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Smooth toadfish grow steadily larger as they grow older" - most fish have indeterminate growth which you should at least link to and maybe specifically state here.
Ahaaa, thanks for that...didn't recall the name. have made a link now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The IUCN Red List includes changes in populations as a critical part of its assessment, so include that with "Its large range and abundance"
  • By that you could simply say "stable population"
good point/added - I altered the emphasis of the next segment to make it less repetitive-sounding.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Link to "shellfish" and "lipid" the first time they are mentioned.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In general, I agree with the above reviewers that this generally meets FA critera. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

2006 Subway 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 Subway 500 (today called the Goody's Headache Relief Shot 500 for sponsorship purposes), a NASCAR stock car race held at Martinsville Speedway won by Jimmie Johnson. I created this article in January 2015 and it attained GA status that same month. I made a further expansion of the article in August and it had a copy-edit from the GOCE in September. I look forward to any comments regarding this article. Z105space (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

History of York City F.C. (1908–80)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This article details the history of York City Football Club, an association football club based in York, England, from 1908 to 1980. This nomination comes on the back of the successful FAC for Bootham Crescent, the club's ground, and as part of my drive to improve the York City F.C. featured topic. The article has held GA status since December 2007, and upon its recent expansion was copyedited by Baffle gab1978 of the WP:GOCE. Thanks in advance, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Parutakupiu[edit]

A big part of my comments will focus on sentence construction, so I'll try to explain you case-by-case how I believe the text would read better. Sometimes, I may get bored and just copyedit the article, so I hope you can scrutinise my changes and revert them if you don't agree. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

General

  • I think the article would become richer if the section titles had something more than just year periods. A piece of text that could either sum up the most important moments or highlight a particular but highly relevant event from the club's history during each period.
    • Added descriptive section headers. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You often link football seasons to 19XX–9X in English football, which never show any details from the divisions in which YCFC played. In some cases (e.g. Northern Football League), there are season-specific articles that those links should point to. For other leagues (e.g. Yorkshire Combination, Midland League) without seasonal articles, I'd prefer if the links to 19XX–9X in English football were removed altogether than pointing to a page that has no related content. I'm fine with whatever you choose.
    • Wikilinked as suggested. I'll link to the club season articles as and when they're created. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice you use the semicolon mark... a lot. In many instances, sentences are short enough to link the different clauses with a conjunction, and it often makes the read flow better.
    • This was largely the product of the independent coyedit. Reworded some sentences to reduce the number of semicolons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid as best as possible to begin sentences with season year numbers. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Have reduced the number of sentences that begin with seasons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead

  • "... covers the period from the club's original foundation..."
  • Suggestion #1: "Originally founded in 1908, York City played several seasons..."
  • "... before the Football League stored its usual competitions in 1946–47." Stored? You mean restored?
  • Suggestion #2: "... because they finished the 1949–50 season at the bottom of the Third Division North."
  • Suggestion #3: "York played in the Third Division North until 1958–59, when a league reorganisation placed them in the Fourth Division."
  • Suggestion #4: "The same season, they finished third and won their first-ever promotion, but were relegated after one season."
  • Goal average should read goal difference, as the link it points to.
    • The Football League used goal average until 1976, when it was replaced with goal difference (see this). Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion #5: "They were promoted to the Second Division for the first and only time in 1973–74. By mid-October 1974, York achieved the fifth position—their highest league placing—before finishing the 1974–75 season in fifteenth place."
  • Suggestion #6: "... and a twenty-second place finish in the 1977–78 Fourth Division forced the club to apply for re-election."

1908–17

  • Place a comma between "...in June 1912" and ref #5

1922–39

  • "... the decision was made to form the York City Association Football and Athletic Club Limited.[11], with W. H. Shaw was being elected as the club's first chairman.[11]"
  • "The club's first season proved disappointing financially, with a loss of £718 reported.[16], and as a consequence Shaw relinquished the chairmanship to Arthur Brown.[16]"
  • "This was York's last season in the Midland League; as the club won election into the Football League on 3 June 1929..."
  • "York's first match in the Football League was played away to Wigan Borough on 31 August 1929; it and finished with a 2–0 victory for York the visitors.[26]"
  • "1929–30 brought two meetings with First Division club Newcastle United in the FA Cup third round, and York ranked in a sixth place in their first York's Football League debut season.[28]"
  • Place a comma between "... in May 1933" and ref #37
  • "In Although the club finished 1934–35, the club finished in fifteenth place,[39] and saw Bootham Crescent stage its first match against First Division opposition when Derby County defeated York 1–0 in the FA Cup third round.[40]"
  • Place a comma between "... with his brother" and ref #43

1939–59

  • Place a comma between "regional competitions" and ref #53. Check if other ref tags are not placed after punctuation marks and correct as per WP:REFPUNC.
    • I don't think the sentence would be improved with a comma there. Per the guideline you have cited, "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space". The reference doesn't necessarily have to follow punctuation. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmm, it does allow that interpretation, although it's more clear in WP:CITEFOOT. Still, it only says it's normal practice to place ref tags after punctuation marks, not a guideline. It's just I rarely see such tags being placed freely within text that I felt the need to point it out. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Notice also the punctuation mark changes in the following suggestion: "... on a wartime footing.[54] York decided to carry on playing,[55] York and were placed in the North East League, where they ranked ranking eighth in their section of eleven clubs.[56] In the final weeks of 1939–40, York they competed in the Football League War Cup in the final weeks of 1939–40."
  • "The format was changed for 1941–42." Whose format? Is this really' necessary?
  • Break up long sentence: "After completing eighteen fixtures in the Football League North, York competed in the league-organised qualifying stage of the War Cup, but were eliminated after ranking thirty-third of fifty-four clubs, failing to qualify for the knock-out stages by one place."
  • "Peacetime football resumed in 1946–47, and with the same fixture list as the abandoned 1939–40 season was used."
  • "1951–52 was York's best post-war season to date; as they finished in tenth place and set a home record of sixteen wins, four draws and three defeats."
  • Typo: "... the team embarked on a ten-match uneaten sequence."

1959–80

  • "This application was successful, as the club polled the maximum forty-eight votes."
  • "The team reached the FA Cup third round, where they were beaten 2–0 at home by First Division Stoke City"
    • Not sure if "where" is the best word to use here, as we're not referring to a location. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I tend to use "where" in the case of competition rounds/stages, but maybe I've been wrong. Hey, you're the native speaker... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The team drew 1–1 at home with Aston Villa in their opening Second Division match on 17 August 1974, with Barry Lyons scored scoring for York."
  • "York finished the season in fifteenth place,[149] and but the season's highlights included..."
    • I'm not sure about using "but" here; it implies the league finish was poor, when it's in fact the club's best-ever ranking... Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, true but they were fifth at some point, so it must've felt a bit disappointing to end up ten ranks lower. But yes, in terms of final classification, you're right, so nevermind. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

— Parutakupiu (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Satisfied with the changes, so here's my approval. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments – I haven't reviewed the above comments in detail, so I'm sorry if anything is copied or mentioned up there.

  • In the lead: "The club was reformed in 1922 and was elected to play...". Next sentence: "they were elected to play in the Football League for 1929–30, and were placed...". Is there any reason why the team is singular in the first sentence and plural in the second?
    • Association football articles generally use the rule of thumb: "club = singluar, team = plural", although the lines can become blurred. One example is History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959), which was recently promoted to FA status. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 1908–17: You probably don't need a World War I link, since that is such a common item and doesn't provide much utility in a football/soccer article.
    • Removed the wikilinks to the world wars. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 1922–39: "with Jock Collier taking over as player-manager." This is a noun plus ing type of sentence structure, which tends to be wordy and not the best prose possible. You could substitute "named" for "taking over" to fix this.
  • I see a couple of years starting sentences, which also isn't optimal. One possible fix is "The XXXX season" or similar.
  • There are more of these later in the article, so keep an eye out for them.
  • 1959–80: "and was replaced by Lockie. Lockie's...". Try not to repeat the name like this from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
  • Another noun plus -ing to fix here: "with Barry Lyons scoring for York." Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Support – The extensive review from Parutakupiu above is what really got this article into good shape. I believe that it meets the standards, so I'll support it. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Schmerber v. California[edit]

Nominator(s): Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important United States Supreme Court cases of the twentieth century. In Schmerber, the Court established that police cannot forcibly intrude into the human body (i.e. by taking blood samples, taking tissue samples, or forcing people to undergo surgery) without a warrant. The Court also established that physical evidence taken from the body is not "testimonial" and the prosecution's use of such evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment's protections against forced self-incrimination. I have used the Bluebook citation style for this article, which is the prefered citation style for legal scholarship. Although many editors dislike Bluebook, it is a perfectly acceptible citation style, per MOS:LAW and WP:CITEVAR (it has also been used by other Featured Articles, such as United States v. Kagama and United States v. Washington). Thank you in advance for everyone who reviews this! Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Atsme[edit]

Nicely written. Will comment further after I do a little copyediting. Atsme📞📧 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Per FA criteria:

  • prose is of a professional standard;
  • comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
  • neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  • stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  • It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    • a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    • appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;
    • Bluebook ref acceptable
    • Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Comments from Cirt[edit]

  • Support. My thanks to the FA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to my comments, above. Thank you for your efforts to improve this article about a fascinating intersection between topics of the law and WP:Human rights. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Minor4th[edit]

A couple of minor points/suggestions:

1. I would like to see a picture of Justice Brennan, who delivered the majority opinion. As far as I know, all FA legal articles contain a picture of the justice delivering the majority opinion.

2. In the lede, where you say "warrantless blood sample taken in this case was justified under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception" - the paragraph would be more cohesive if you briefly describe what the circumstances were that were considered exigent.

3. Your See also section contains links to cases that you have also wikilinked and linked in the body and references. I think you should remove those from the See also section.

4. I love your excellent use of Bluebook citation style and explanatory footnotes.

Good job.

Support. Minor4th 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support Minor4th! Per your suggestions, I made the following modifications to the article:
1. I added a picture of Justice Brennan next to the discussion of the majority's opinion
2. In the lead, I explained what the exigent circumstance was in this case
3. I cleaned up the redundant links in the see also section
I truly appreciate your willingness to offer your feedback for this FA review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Type-0[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... Final Fantasy Type-0, a game in the Final Fantasy series released for the PlayStation Portable (PSP) on October 27, 2011. It was produced and published by Square Enix, and forms part of the Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy subseries. The original PSP game was not released outside Japan, and relevant information for its localized HD remaster Final Fantasy Type-0 HD has been given its own article. The article was nominated for and passed GA review in September of this year. It has undergone copyedits from multiple editors, all references are as clearly formatted as possible and archived using sites that enable the archived pages to work as best as possible. I feel that this article is ready to be submitted to FA review. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

India House[edit]

rueben lys(s): rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian nationalist organisation that existed in London in the first decade of the 20th century. It is a slightly overlooked but important topic, in being the first prominent arena of nationalist works of a number of Indians who later became famous for various different reasons. Most famous amongst these people is V.D. Savarkar, but there is also leaders like Har Dayal, M.P.T. Acharya, V.N. Chatterjee and others who are associated with different political thoughts in India. The article failed FAC twice in the past almost seven years ago because of prose. It has remained stable since. I copy edited it recently to improve prose on the back of two other copy edits in the past by other editors. Would like to see this article meet FA criteria. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FAC Coordinator's Comment - there are too many unsourced statements throughout the article; there should be no none. There are problems with the formatting (click on refs 2,7,11,26,31,33,36,44,52,73,and 85 for examples) and there are unused sources in the references. Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have addressed the references now (as many as I could identify). If you highlight which sentences maybe require citations, I will try to find these ASAP.
One dead link, which I have tagged, remains along with the unused sources. Graham Beards (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou Graham. The dead link has now been replaced with literature ref. Unused sources have been removed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

A few initial observations:

  • You say in the text: "India House was a large Victorian Mansion..." etc. As the house is very much still there, the present tense should be used. The word "mansion" should not be capitalised; I don't thinbk the pipe-link to Victorian architecture is particularly helpful to readers.
  • There is too much use of the phrase "such as", throughout the article, sometimes in very close proximity – see "Indian nationalism in Britain" section. Try and use some variant phrasing.
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you include a list of "prominent Indian revolutionaries and nationalists associated with India House". Of these, " V. V. S. Aiyar" is not mentioned in the body of the article at all, while "V.N. Chatterjee" and "P.M. Bapat" are only mentioned once, in passing, from which I must assume that their association with India House was fleeting. AS the lead is supposed to highlight the most significant aspects of the text, maybe you should reconsider the inclusion of these marginal names.
  • Incidentally, you need to be consistent in formatting the initials in names: V. V. S. Aiyar has spacing while other names do not. Choose one format (the spaceless one is much preferred)
  • In the final paragraph of the lead, the first sentence needs re-punctuating: "In 1909 a member of India House, Madan Lal Dhingra, assassinated..." etc. You should also wikilink Secretary of State for India.
  • "Countermeasures" is one word, not two.

These are minor issues in what appears to be a well constructed and comprehensive article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brian,

  • India house "was" is now corrected to "is".
  • "Such as" is now appropriately reworded.
  • Name formatting has been consisten(~ified, for want of a better suffix)
  • The members mentioned in the lead are mentioned in the body as well, either in the transformation section or in the world war I section. V.N. Chatterjee is perhaps a bit undementioned but his role in wwi is more notable.
  • Secretary of state is already wikilinked (or an elf has done this interim).
  • Countermeasures oneworded.

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:India_House_collage2.jpg: if I'm reading this correctly, several parts of this collage are non-free, yes? Can you explain why you chose to use this? I think it would make more sense to use a simpler image, ideally a free one
  • File:Champakraman_Pillai.jpg: what is the original source of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. This actually touches upon the very substance of the article itself. Although India House itself was a residence, ie a building, the term "India House" came to collectively describe the organisations that worked under its roof, the radical nationalists who lived and worked there, and the nationalist ideologies that emerged from this group of organisations and people. So when you say "India House", the term is associated with the latter group rather than the house itself. The article has an image of the house itself, but the introductory collage is a mash of the people who used the building for their works, or in the case of Anant Lakshman Kanhere, people whose actions in India were directly influenced by the organisations living in India House in London. The image of Maud Gonne ties in the links to Irish nationalist groups that had ties to the house. The central image of TIS ties everything together in that it was Kirshna Verma's mouthpiece and expressed the ideologies emerging from the house in words, and therefore represented all of this. The collage therefore exemplifies to the reader what India House was and what it influenced. This is important, since you will see from the "Influence" section that the house had a huge influence on many different aspects of Indian politics, from the independence movement before and during the great war, through Gandhian independence movement, to Hindu-nationalism and Indian communism which have had effects even upto present day Indian politics.

A simpler image, say for example of the house itself, or of Savarkar (who is the most famous association of the house) will be insufficient to the extent it will skew the reader's focus to either one individual (Savarkar or Dhingra) which would be leading to an inappropriate inference, or to the building itself, ie the architecture etc, which is absolutely not the focus of the article nor notable in any shape or form.

I hope this clarifies.


With regards to the source of Champakaraman Pillai image, it was obtained from commons, and the source is given as a website called Indianetzone. The website is listed as holding Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 permissions per here. The photo itslef is of Pillai in his young middle age, and Pillai himself died in 1934 in Germany. The image is therefore taken sometime between 1910s and/or early 1920s. I cant say anything more about this image.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

New comment Could editors please review the replies to their comments. It will help me clarify if concerns have been adressed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Frank Jenner[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an English Australian street evangelist who was little-known while he was alive but whose story became widely repeated and distorted after his death. The article received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and was later promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Hi Neelix, welcome back to FAC. It's fine by me that this article was initially tagged with the WP:Milhist cat ... because you never know, sources might have been found that added details to his military career. But it hasn't happened yet ... apparently, the sources don't say much more about his military career than that he deserted from two navies and bought his way out of a third ... so I don't believe this meets the bar for Milhist-tagged articles, and I've removed the tag. I'm open to hearing other ideas, though. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article, Dan! I don't mind that you've removed the Military History WikiProject tag from the article's talk page. If you have any further thoughts about the article, please let me know! Neelix (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

  • "When he was 24, he deserted again, this time in Australia." - did he desert from the United States Navy to the Australian Navy?
  • "but after he died, tales of his evangelistic activities circulated widely" - I'm not sure if 'tales' sounds informal or not, but feel free to ignore if I'm wrong
  • " in Southampton, Hampshire, England, United Kingdom" - this is too much. I'd remove either 'England' or 'United Kingdom' (also in the infobox)
  • "but deserted in New York City, New York, United States" - too much here again! I would remove either 'New York' or 'United States'
  • "Jenner's daughter said in an interview" - stated
  • "the United States Navy took him to Melbourne, Australia, and he deserted again" - this gives me the wrong impression that the United States Navy specifically took him to Melbourne. Were they on a training exercise etc?
  • "in 1937 when he was legally discharged from the navy" - the lead doesn't mention that he joined the Australian Navy nor that he bought his way out
  • "they returned to Sydney on SS Oronsay" - I think the SS Oronsay is linked incorrectly
  • "Stanton went on to found the Jesus Army" - when? In what year did he found it? It also would be interesting to know if Jenner had an influence with the Jesus Army
  • You might want to consider the option of using either British or Australian spelling for this article, given that they have an equal amount of ties to this subject. Personally I'm neutral with it, but it's just something to give you a heads-up over just in case other reviewers mention it

That's what I could find with the prose, other than that though this is another excellent and interesting article. Well done on writing this! A couple of the points I mentioned were minor, so you can ignore them if you want. JAGUAR  18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I believe that I have addressed most of your concerns. You asked whether Jenner deserted from the United States Navy to the Australian Navy. He did not; he left the United States Navy circa 1927 (when he was 24) and joined the Australian Navy circa 1936 (soon before accompanying HMAS Canberra to Sydney in August of that year). Is there a way that you would like this to be made clearer in the article? You also mentioned the possibility that Jenner influenced the Jesus Army. Apart from Jenner's role in the founder's conversion to Christianity, it is unlikely that Jenner had any influence on the Jesus Army; Stanton founded the organization after Jenner had become debilitated by Parkinson's disease. Please let me know if I can do more to address any of the concerns you have raised or if you have any others. Neelix (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them, Neelix! I think I might have over-scrutinised the lead, so the mention of him deserting in Australia should be fine for the reader. Everything else of my prose review has been addressed, so I'll be happy to support this article. Well done on all the work put into this one, this really was interesting for me. JAGUAR  16:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly

Generally good stuff. Some particular concerns, however:

  • First sentence Too long, I think. Could you split it up? I suggest Frank Arthur "Bones" Jenner (surname often misspelled Genor) (2 November 1903 – 8 May 1977) was an English Australian evangelist. He was famous for his signature approach to evangelism, which was to ask people on George Street, Sydney, "If you died within 24 hours, where would you be in eternity? Heaven or hell?"
  • He eventually joined the Royal Navy, but In the context of the lead, you haven't explained why this is eventually. I think you can omit the word.
  • When he was 24, he deserted again, this time in Australia, where he worked for the Royal Australian Navy until buying his way out in 1937. Overly complex. I suggest When he was 24, he deserted again while in Australia. He subsequently worked for the Royal Australian Navy until he bought his way out in 1937.
  • In 1952, The Reverend Francis Dixon Lowercase the needed.
  • Thenceforward I agree that this is a word, but it seems slightly affected. Why not From this point on?
  • Jenner eventually joined the Royal Navy I still don't understand why this was "eventually". It would be more useful to tell us his age at the time.
  • There, he met Charlie Peters Unnecessary comma.
  • The Navigators Lowercase "the".
  • For 28 years, from his initial conversion until his debility from Parkinson's disease, Jenner engaged in this form of evangelism, probably speaking with more than 100,000 people in total,[10] hundreds of whom made initial professions of conversion to Christianity. Too many subclauses! For 28 years, from his initial conversion until his debility from Parkinson's disease, Jenner engaged in this form of evangelism. He probably spoke with more than 100,000 people,[10] hundreds of whom made initial professions of conversion to Christianity.
  • Repetition of "normally" in the Evangelism section.
  • who was serving in the Royal Australian Air Force at the time "at the time" is unnecessary.
  • The first sentence of Discovery by Francis Dixon seems a classic case of WP:OVERCITE. Why does The Reverend need citing, for instance?
  • There, Dixon hoped to find Jenner,[31] whose name he did not yet know. Odd start to a sentence. Dixon hoped to find Jenner there, although he did not yet know his name.
  • connected Dixon with him Vague. What does it mean? "Introduced"?
  • The picture of Ray Comfort seems out of place in the article, as does the picture of the tsetse fly. Neither to my mind matches WP:PERTINENCE, which requires that images be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic".

Relentlessly (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article, Relentlessly! I have implemented most of your recommendations, with a few exceptions. I retained the capital "T" in "The Reverend" and "The Navigators" because I believe this to be correct; see the content of both The Reverend and The Navigators (organization) for examples of such capitalization. I also retained the second instance of "eventually"; we don't know the age at which Jenner joined the Royal Navy, and I want to be sure to avoid implying to the reader that this joining of the Royal Navy was the same event as his joining of the training ship for misbehaving boys. I retained the comma in the phrase "There, he met Charlie Peters" because I believe this to be correct; this is my understanding of appropriate punctuation in the case of adverbial clauses. Finally, I removed the image of the tsetse fly but retained the image of Ray Comfort; it is common for writers about the subject of the article to be pictured in the article, and I think this image to be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Of course, if consensus develops against my position on this point, I will be glad remove the image. I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. Please let me know if I have not or if you have any more to add. Neelix (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Neelix.
From The Reverend: "When the style is used within a sentence, the is correctly in lower-case"! The same goes for the Navigators, I think. Our article is mixed in its use, but here's a Washington Post article that uses the lowercase "the".
Can I suggest "after some time" instead of "eventually"? The latter word carries implications that the former does not.
You are correct about adverbial phrases, but this isn't an adverbial phrase. It's one word, so it's an adverb and the comma is not necessary.
Fair enough re the photo. Relentlessly (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding so promptly to my comments, Relentlessly! I have fixed the capitalization of "the" in "the Reverend" and have switched out "eventually" for "after some time". I still think a capital "T" is appropriate in the case of The Navigators; they use a capital "T" on their official website. My understanding is that the comma applies to adverbials in general rather than adverbial phrases specifically; see, for example, the sentence with "surprisingly" on the Adverbial article. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these small details with me! I would certainly be glad to learn that there is a rule of capitalization or punctuation that I have been employing incorrectly in my writing. Neelix (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi Neelix. I disagree about both, I have to say, but I'm willing to agree they are adiaphora. So I'm very happy to support this now. Relentlessly (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Z105space – Good article so far. Here is one comment

  • The fifth picture lacks alt text.

Once my issues and the issues raised by Relentlessly are rectified, I will gladly give my support. Z105space (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Z105space! I appreciate you picking up on the alt text omission; it has been corrected. Neelix (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the remaining issues have been rectified, I can give my Support to this article. Z105space (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SS_ORONSAY_underway_near_Circular_Quay_(13860178344).jpg: per the tag, is more specific licensing information available?
  • File:Frank_Jenner_the_evangelist.jpg: what was the creation date of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have added a PD-Australia tag to the image of SS Oronsay. I have been unable to discover the specific date of creation for File:Frank_Jenner_the_evangelist.jpg, but it was sometime between 1937 and 1953, and I have added these dates to the image. I hope these additions to the images' Commons pages address your concerns. Neelix (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. The issue is that, while both images are undoubtedly PD in Australia, depending on the specific date they may or may not be PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Our guidelines on country-specific public domain rules state that "Australian photographs taken before January 1, 1946, not published in the U.S., and where no copyright was registered in the U.S., are in the public domain in Australia and the U.S." That clears the photograph of SS Oronsay; the photograph was taken during the ship's pre-war career, so it was taken sometime between 1925 and 1939. I will have to contact Ann Carruthers to see if she can give me a more specific creation date for File:Frank Jenner the evangelist.jpg. Neelix (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed File:Frank Jenner the evangelist.jpg from the article while I wait for a response from Ann Carruthers, Jenner's daughter. If she is able to inform me that it was taken in 1946 or earlier, I will readd the image to the article. Neelix (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Per a nudge on my talk page, I will carry out a source review for this article.

A few quick points first of all:

  • Why not just call him Australian at the start? He's notable for what he did on George Street in Sydney. WP:OPENPARA says previous nationalities and/or place of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. (You could instead add "Born and raised in England" before "At the age of 12", or somewhere else in the lead.)
  • In the infobox we give his allegiance as Australia and service branch as the Royal Australian Navy, but per the article's body Jenner served in the Royal Navy and the US Navy too.
  • There is also a Bexley in southern England. I would clarify that the place Jenner attended church was in New South Wales.
  • Bedfordshire, next door to my home county of Hertfordshire, is not in the east of England (I know it is for statistical purposes, but to any English person the "east" is East Anglia). Bedfordshire would be better described as being in south-eastern England.
  • Perhaps clarify where Hebron School is. I presumed it was in the city of Hebron to the south of Jerusalem.
  • We say Stanton "converted to Christianity" after his experience with Jenner. I'm really not sure about the accuracy of this wording. "Conversion" is usually used when a person actually leaves another religion, whereas Stanton would almost certainly have been at least nominally Christian already. Per the wording at this source, I think it is more accurate to say Stanton became a committed Christian, or something along those lines, than to say he "converted".
  • The above is a wording actually repeated several times throughout the article. I think it would better to say these people "became Christians", "became believers" or something along those lines, as, to reiterate, they probably would have been at least nominally affiliated to a Christian denomination already.

OK, source review. I'll check formatting first.

  • Some of the sources have locations given (Ahn, Wilkinson, Wilson) while others do not. Be consistent on this.
  • What's the ASSIST News Service? Where's it based and who publishes it?
  • Where's the Jesus Army based? Northampton or thereabouts, no?
  • How about Counsel Magazine? Where's this based? Who wrote the article? Who published the magazine?

I'll carry out some spotchecks later. Hope this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions and source review, John! I have implemented all of your proposed changes, although the last one only partially; I retained the words "converted" and "conversion" where they refer to Jenner, but have replaced them wherever they refer to someone else's experience. I hope this compromise is satisfactory. I agree that conversion connotes switching from one organized religion to another, although the broader denotation of the word includes switching from a state of not believing the central tenants of one's affiliate religion to a state of believing in them. The article would become very wordy if we were to alter all references to Jenner's conversion to avoid the word "conversion". I have added the locations for all the books as well as the Jesus Army website. I have removed the ASSIST News Service and Council Magazine sources; I added them several years ago and I haven't been able to find evidence of their reliability. Considering that they were only there as examples of erroneous stories about Jenner, it's not a big loss to remove them. Thanks for offering to do spot checks! Neelix (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonam Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Frankie talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the "Masakali girl", a not-so-good actress, yet a fashion icon. It was reviewed and promoted straight away by the user Jaguar on October 2015 for GA. Anyway, the article is pretty comprehensive as it covers important aspects of her life and career. This is my first attempt for FAC (not for featured as I have already a bunch of FLs under my belt). The article is well-researched. Comments, in any form and from anyone, will be very much appreciated. Happy reading! -- Frankie talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

I have some comments to make, but I'll examine the article first. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to point out errors, but I have cleaned the prose up a bit. Please tell me if you like it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that! :) -- Frankie talk 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Quick question: where is the source that she is Punjabi? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Added. -- Frankie talk 06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

Lead

  • "Kapoor has been nominated for three Filmfare Awards and won two Stardust Awards." Only filmfare and National awards should be mentioned.
  • Because she has only been nominated for Filmfare, and she has only won Stardust Awards.
  • Delhi-6 (2009) is not a political drama, it's more like a comedy drama.
  • This says otherwise.
  • "She also featured briefly in the highly successful biographical sports film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013)"...The word "highly" should be removed.

Early life and background

  • "Her sister is producer Rhea, and actor Harshvardhan is her brother." Harshavardhan hasn't acted in a single film yet. Is it wise to call him an actor.!?
  • Mention her relation with actress Sridevi.
  • I don't think she is the relative of Sridevi; she is only her uncle's wife.
Which means she is her aunt.
Yeah, added. -- Frankie talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "As a child, she was interested in reading books, and was a bibliophile." Looks trivial to me.
  • Being a bibliophile seems quite notable to me.
  • "For health concerns, she visited Jindal Health Camp in Banglore." Again.
  • The media does not have info on whether she was treated after her diabetes or not, and I believe this is the only info available on her treatment regarding diabetes.

Debut and career fluctuations

  • Is it important to include Stardust Award for Superstar of Tomorrow – Female? coz in india, every channel has there own awards and they'r not important.
  • Yeah, as this is the only award, which she won.
  • There is a repeat use of the sentence "The film underperformed at the box-office." You can replace one of them with "the film failed at the box-office", or "it was a box-office disappointment."

Personal life and other work

  • "The actress currently lives in Juhu, Mumbai." Why not include this in the early life and background section?
  • That section already says that she moved to Juhu while a month old.
  • Mentioning her relationship with Ranbir Kapoor, Sahil Berry sounds like a gossip column stuff. They didn't lasted long enough unlike Shahid-Kareena.
  • Nope, they have been widely reported in the media. Although they (she and her boyfriends) haven't acknowledged, it's important to know what the media has reported.

In the media

  • Her opinion on her approach to acting doesn't looks relevant to "In the media" section". It should only include opinion's of other's about her.
  • I think it's important to know on what basis she chooses roles.
Then "In the media" section is not a good place for this quote, place it somewhere else.
Well, I don't know if it is relevant for in the media section, but it definitely suits the paragraph it is in as it talks about info related to her acting. -- Frankie talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO this section has too much quotes, please remove one of them atleast.
  • I can't remove or paraphrase them as the media section is always about this; what they think of her. @Yashthepunisher: I have paraphrased a quote from the section. I can not think of paraphrasing (or removing) other quotes as they are pretty important ones and some things are best when original. -- Frankie talk 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Yashthepunisher. I have resolved the rest. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Apart from all these, I don't see any problem with the article. There are still two unresolved issues, resolve them and it has my Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) -- Frankie talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • FrB.TG, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I do, however, have a few comments and suggestions that must first be addressed. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I have completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you West Virginian for your excellent and comprehensive review. I have replied them in your capped comments. Also, I will try to return the favor by reviewing your FAC. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support FrB.TG, thank you for your timely responses to my review. Upon my re-review of your article, I find that it is ready for Featured Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

  1. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Image review: I as well have reviewed all the images. All check out except File:Sonam Kapoor Dheere Dheere Unveiling.jpg = tagged with: This image, which was originally posted to Bollywood Hungama, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid.
  3. Alongside her career, Kapoor supports charities and causes, such as creating awareness on breast cancer. = this sentence is oddly phrased for several reasons. "awareness on breast cancer" and "alongside her career" are awkwardly phrased.
  4. Early life and background - could be just titled more simply, Early life.
  5. Acting career - similarly the two subsection titles within this sect would be better if simpler titles used.
  6. "has become" ... "has been"... can be changed throughout the article to simpler "became" "was"
  7. They lived in an apartment with one room furnished. After her father became a popular Bollywood actor, he built the entire house. - you mean "furnished" the entire house? Was it not built before? Or not furnished?
  8. Kapoor was educated at the Arya Vidya Mandir school in Juhu,[13] following which she enrolled at the United World College of South East Asia in Singapore for her pre-university education, where she studied theatre and arts - sentence is a bit long, consider splitting.
  9. "However" = used eight (8) times in the article, consider removing these outright.
  10. "Also" = used twelve (12) times in the article, consider removing these and phrasing differently.
  11. According to Kapoor, she started working at the age of 15, and her first job was that of a waitress, which lasted for one week. = too much use of commas in this sentence, consider splitting.
  12. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Impression overall: Quite meticulously sourced, high-quality article for its present stage of WP:GA, which is good and I'm glad it reached that level -- so thank you to all for the Quality improvement efforts that went into improving this page for our Wikipedia readers. However, the writing quality could stand with some improvement from a few Native-English speakers and/or Professional-Level-English speakers. Specifically with regards to awkward phraseology, too much use of commas, "However", "Also", etc. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thanks for your comments. The source (regarding furnishing the house) itself is quite unclear and we can not necessarily assume either. I have removed that. I have copy-edited the article. I am not going to request copy-edits from a "few" English speakers as I think the prose is now good enough. And most of the Indian articles are written this way (I have modeled it based on them). Please revisit and share your thoughts with me. Thanks. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that was not a sufficient response. Many of the above issues are unaddressed. Just because some of the Indian articles are written this way and you modeled it based on them, does not mean this one should have sub-standard prose. I do wish you the best of luck -- but the article needs significant copy-editing from Native-English speakers or Professional-level-English speakers. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Source review from Johanna[edit]

Sorry it's been such a long time. I figured I would do a source review. Most of it's looking pretty good. I just have a few questions on the reliability of a couple sources—what are "Mid Day", "Rediff.com", and "Skjbollywoodnews.com"? Why are they reliable? Shockingly for an article with this many refs, there are no deadlinks, and everything seems to be formatted quite well. Looks like you've done a lot to get the picky stuff up to snuff. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the source review Johanna. Mid Day is a well reputed source, Rediff.com is used in many Indian FAs and Skjbollywoodnews.com is a website of a renowned critic. -- Frankie talk 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - This article is well-written, well-researched and nice images! Iggy488 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) [edit]

  • Parts of the first two paras (of the lead) are jumbled - the first one gives an intro, talks about the awards, and then suddenly goes to her family. While the second para looks good as a standalone one, it continues exactly from where the first para ends.
  • "The actress is known in the media for her outspoken personality" - Definitely borders WP:PUFF. Also, the bit which talks about her "charity" is WP:UNDUE.
How is it puffery? I have even included her outspoken statements in the media image section and how they are widely reported and sometimes criticized.
  • "Her off-screen life is the subject of fervent tabloid reporting in India." - who cares? this is an encyclopedia.
I have found the very same thing in many of the high-quality articles.
  • Her connection with Sridevi needs to be properly established.
  • "Her paternal grandfather—filmmaker Surinder Kapoor—died in 2011 after suffering a cardiac arrest" - I'm not sure how relevant is the cause of her grandfather's death here.
Maybe you're right but I think just "he died in 2011" will make readers curious to know the cause.
  • "As a child, she was a bibliophile" - Again, this should only be mentioned unless this has had a significant impact in her life later on.
  • "She described herself as a "naughty" and "carefree" child, and she would "bully boys. I would push them, [and] beat them." - I think there is a misplacement of quotes in the last part.
  • "As part of an annual tradition, Kapoor—a practicing Hindu—and her family celebrate the festival of Ganesha Chaturthi each year" - This one is trivial.
I have found the very same thing in Rani Mukerji's biography.
  • "For health concerns, she visited Jindal Health Camp in Bangalore." - This one needs clarification.
The source does not clarify so I have removed it.
  • What exactly was the role of Rani Mukherji in Kapoor's entry to films?
  • "While working on Black, Bhansali expressed interest in casting Kapoor as the lead in Bhansali's [his] next film, Saawariya"
  • "Inspired by Bhansali's confidence in her, she lost 35 kilograms (77 lb) in two years" - Not sure if "inspire" is the correct word in the given context.
  • "Kapoor took acting classes from the theatre personalities Roshan Taneja, Jayati Bhatia and Feroz Abbas Khan.[7]" - Precision needed.
  • Can you replace the Yahoo news ref. (which talks about the Best Female Debut nom) with a better source; the article was authored by someone who works for a horoscope site.
  • "Kapoor has cited actresses ... admiring "their quality of doing different things." The one in quotes is too much vague – in what sense?
  • "In 2015, Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex." - You think this is encyclopedic?
Buying a house worth 4.5 million dollars is surely encyclopedic.
  • Juhu being a suburb of Mumbai was clarified twice previously.
  • The second para of the personal life section reads like a gossip column; there is no point in including her "alleged" relationship with Punit Malhotra. Besides, you clearly say that it was a speculation by the media. Secondly, the bit is confusing – given they both denied the relationship, where's the point of breaking up? Also, neither of the sources tell the "denial" part.
I am not a huge fan of this bullshit either but I think it's quite an important one. Many of the recently promoted articles have also covered some alleged relationships which have been widely covered by the media.
  • "She is the brand ambassador for Elle Breast Cancer Campaign which promotes breast cancer awareness." - needless clarification
  • The last para of the section reads a bit listy.
  • The 'Media image and artistry' section is bombarded with quotes.
  • The Vogue India quote adds very little value to the article.
  • Who is Sonal Ved?
  • "Kapoor, however, has often been criticised for her traditional Indian dresses which Hindustan Times has opined that she "isn’t able to do much justice to Indian clothes." - Given this statement at the start of the section: "actress is particularly praised for her dress sense and fashion. She attracts wide media attention for her dressing style at public events and film promotions." this one is contradictory. further, the third para says she was "widely regarded as a fashionista" - repetitive stuff.
Does sound contradictory that's why I have added "however".
  • "Kapoor is known in the Indian media for her outspoken nature and for honestly expressing her forthright opinions in public" - Again, borders WP:PUFF; she is no Arundhati Roy.
Replied above.
  • You say she is described as a style icon by the Indian media, but the claim is supported by a single ref.
  • "The following year, she jumped to the thirty first position" - Not sure if "jump" is an acceptable word.
  • All three sentences of the last para start with "Kapoor".
  • "Kapoor is the celebrity endorser for brands, such as Colgate, Electrolux, Lux, Mont Blanc, Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. and Signature" - You mean she is the only endorser for all these products? Plus, the ref. is dead.
  • "In 2014, she became the endorser for Oppo Mobile,[142] for which she was paid approximately ₹30 million (US$450,000), making her one of the highest paid celebrities for endorsements in India" - the source which talks about the 30 million deal doesn't tell that she was paid by Oppo.
Yeah, I don't know how does it say Oppo Mobile. Anyway, corrected.

All these are from the lead, early life, personal life and media image sections. I haven't really read much of the 'Acting career' section. To summarize, I see a problem of WP:UNDUE with the personal life and media image sections. They are bombarded with quotes and unencyclopedic stuff. The prose too needs a bit of work; it would be largely benefited by a top-to-bottom copyedit, preferably by a native/professional-level editor. —Vensatry (ping) 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have removed some of the quotes from the media image section. I will soon have someone copy-edit the article though I doubt I am that lucky. :D -- Frankie talk 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Will look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

2013: "The film tells the story of a young Muslim student from Varanasi who is drawn into Indian politics after the murder of her Sikh lover. The actress was cast as Zoya who is—in her words—"extremely feminine, but she knows her mind."[60" Not clear actually which character she plays. Is Zoya the Muslim student? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what value " "They had a budget and they told me they can’t give money and that’s why I said give Rs11"" gives.

Personal life
  • "Kapoor has cited actresses Waheeda Rehman and Nutan as her source of inspiration.[85] The actress currently lives in Juhu.[86] In 2015, Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex.[87] She is trained in Kathak, classical music and Latin dance.[88] Regarding her religious affiliations, the actress said, "I am quite religious. It's a great way of reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much."[16] In a 2009 interview, Kapoor spoke about her suffering from insulin resistance; she has since launched an initiative to create awareness on diabetes.[89] While filming Prem Ratan Dhan Payo in Gondal, Gujarat, she was diagnosed with swine influenza in February 2015 and was flown to Mumbai in an air-ambulance. She recovered from the infection the following month.[90][91"

-I'm not sure how you can justify putting that range of content all in one paragraph, a little haphazard,

Media image and artistry -Artistry?? Just media image will suffice

Yeah, for an actress like Kapoor, artistry reads pretty odd. @Dr. Blofeld: Thanks very much for the comments, pretty good ones. -- Frankie talk 11:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Vensatry that it could use a copyedit. If I had more passion towards the project right now I'd help. I'd make some quite extensive changes though which you might not agree with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if you make those changes as I know that will be for the betterment of the article. I think I know what to expect. Anyway, I am looking forward to it. -- Frankie talk 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia)[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive illustration of the history and architecture of a 19th-century church building, which houses a congregation founded in the 18th-century. The property is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I am eager to solicit and incorporate the input and guidance of other FAC editors and administrators. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – very good piece of work; however, I have got a few things. Could you define "Simple" for me in the alt text of the main image? "Hebron Church was founded in 1786 as Great Capon Church" – do you think that Great Capon Church should be in bold as from the sentence I assume it is its original "name". Also, could you archive two links in beige (not quite sure if beige or..) here? Additionally there are quite a few MOS:DASH violations in titles of references. -- Frankie talk 19:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FrB.TG, thank you for taking the time to engage in this FAC review. I've actually removed "simple" in favor of rendering the alt caption as: "The main façade of the church with two white doors and upper windows." I've also added "Great Capon Church" to the first sentence of the lede as an alternative name of the church. I had trouble archiving the two links before with Internet Archive, but I had success archiving both links with Webcite. I've also added the en dash to titles with year dates in them. Please let me know if you see anything else in the meantime, and thank you for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I have a particular interest in historical churches, particularly those established by German immigrants to the United States. I seldom see one so well written me. I am seriously impressed by this article. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Maile66, thank you for your appreciation and kind words, and for taking the time to review this article! If you like this one, you may want to check out Old Pine Church, a German Brethren church also in Hampshire County. I hope to bring this to FAC one day, too. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "The original log church was … used as a sexton" – the linked article, and the three US English dictionaries I have just checked online, use the word "sexton" to mean a person and not a building. (The word is again used as though it meant a building in "Construction" in the main text.)
      • I've changed sexton to sexton's house, as that was the building's function according to the Brannon source on p. 477. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "attended by West Virginia governor Herman G. Kump" – really by the governor, or just the future governor?
      • I've changed governor to future governor in both mentions. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Geography and setting
    • "predominantly-rural agricultural" – not sure we want a hyphen here
      • The hyphen has been removed. Thank you for this catch, too! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Church interior
    • "Two inoperable stained-glass windows" – does the adjective mean that they can't be opened? Not altogether clear.
      • It does indeed. I've rephrased the sentence as this: "Two stained-glass windows, which cannot be opened, are along the northwest wall." Let me know this works better. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • References
    • On my screen there is a message at the foot of the refs: "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Munske4" defined multiple times with different content"
      • I just noticed this myself, and I've corrected it. At some point two separate references became one. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. A remarkably thorough article, with the principal writer's enthusiasm for the subject very clear (and very enjoyable). – Tim riley talk 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Tim riley, thank you tremendously for taking the time to perform this review. Your catches, suggestions, and comments are greatly appreciated and I've incorporated all of them into the text. Please let me know if you gave any other comments or questions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Tim riley, please let me know if you have any outstanding issues with this article and I'll address them immediately. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no further comments, and am happy to support the promotion of this article. Tim riley talk 23:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Neutralhomer[edit]

I am still working on my review, but wanted to make you aware of a couple changes I made. I repaired one external link, and I changed a couple WikiLinks. On the WikiLinks, Brickwork#Flemish bond and Flemish bond each go to the same location. Same with Brickwork#American, or common bond and American bond. Same with the others. There is a hidden direct link within the text that allows this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, thank you for engaging in this review, and for identifying and fixing the aforementioned linking issues! I look forward to your finished review! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, the rest of the review is below. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: All the issues I had have been fixed or worked out. :) Very happy with your work on this article, it is going to make an excellent FA. Well done and keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutralhomer, thank you for engaging in this review and for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate all your suggestions and continued guidance! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You're Welcome, glad I could help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dopamine[edit]

Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a substance that plays a very important role in biology; it receives several thousand page views per day. It is currently rated B class, but I've been through the FA process before and I think it's ready for nomination. Let me say a bit about the referencing scheme. The basic concept is that each sentence should cite a reference, with the exception of introductory material that serves only to introduce and summarize material appearing underneath. Thus the lead and several brief introductory paragraphs and introductory sentences don't have refs; they are supported by refs that appear in the following text. There are also a couple of "sky is blue" statements that don't cite sources, but with those exceptions, everything else ought to. I have tried to follow the principles of WP:MEDRS throughout, even though the article is only partly medical. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment seems like the diagram for the dopamine pathways is missing the tuberoinfundibular pathway... Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It omits a number of minor pathways -- it only shows the largest ones. The caption says "major dopamine pathways", but I suppose that could be further clarified if you think it would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well from the literature there are four major pathways and many minor pathways, and this picture has 3 of the major ones. No biggie, just a comment in passing. Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Chiswick Chap[edit]

It's a nicely-organised article and it certainly looks well-cited.

The sections are each on meaty topics and it struck me that many of them ("Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder", "Drug Addiction", "Psychosis", to name but three) deserve a "main" or "further" link. In fact I'd suggest you might go through all the section headings to see if they need such a link, and to add links where needed.

There are inevitably plenty of acronyms. These should be spelt out the first time they occur in the body of the article; ADHD for instance occurs first (not counting the lead) as an acronym. Similarly in the diagrams and captions, for example DAT appears in the "Cocaine increases dopamine levels..." diagram without explanation, whether in the diagram, caption, or even the nearby text; a link would also be helpful.

It might be helpful to wikilink the first occurrences of terms in the image captions. For example, synapse, ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra, striatum, methamphetamine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like to use a "main" when the term appears in the first sentence of a section, but in the cases where it doesn't and seems appropriate I've added one. I have also, as suggested, spelled out acronyms and wikilinked terms in image captions where it wasn't already done. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Questions from John[edit]

  • In the lead, what does "organic" mean?
  • The phrase "a number of" is used seven times in the article. I always find this a very woolly phrase to use, especially on a science article. I am left wondering in each case "What is the number?" Zero is a number, and so is pi, and so is the Avogadro constant. It would usually be better to state the number, or else just say "several" or that the true number is unknown.
  • In the lead, the second and fourth paragraphs repeat the information that antipsychotic drugs act by suppressing the effects of dopamine. Saying it once would be fine.

This level of error and infelicity speaks of a lack of copy-editing. If this is how the whole article is written I could not support it on prose. Sorry. --John (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Good copy-editing is hard to come by, and more is always welcome. I have wikilinked "organic chemical" -- my initial thought was that it would be overlinking, but I accept your guidance. Regarding "a number of", another editor has kindly reworded all the occurrences of it, but you might consider the possibility that your dislike of it is a personal idiosyncrasy. It is widely used by professional copy editors and even in style guides themselves. I haven't seen any style guide that discourages it. Wikipedia's citation guideline includes the sentence, "A number of organizations have created styles to fit their needs; consequently, a number of different guides exist." Etc. Regarding the repetition, the second paragraph is about diseases, the fourth is about drugs. This fact is crucial in both contexts, and really shouldn't be left out of either paragraph. One possible solution would be to add "As already mentioned above..." or something similar for the second occurrence. I generally dislike that sort of thing, but perhaps it is needed here. Looie496 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Re "organic chemical"; you missed the point of my question. I will rephrase this. Why is it vital to highlight that the subject is an organic chemical, which substantially just means it is a carbon compound? It is like starting the Adolf Hitler article by stating that the subject was an Austrian vegetarian. Isn't there a more targeted description we cold use in the crucial first sentence? --John (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Neurotransmitter is the obvious one, I think. --John (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the meantime I oppose the promotion of this article on prose. --John (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from RexxS[edit]

I've done an accessibility check. The table is readable with a screen reader and covers the points in WP:DTT apart from row headers, but the table is small enough for that to not be a concern. The use of colours outside of the images complies with WP:COLOR. The images all have acceptable alt text (now the infobox has been upgraded to take the parameter), although the multiple images in the Chemistry section have captions that repeat the alt text - that could possibly be improved. Three of the images (Synapse dopaminergique.png, Dopamine pathways.svg, Basal ganglia circuits.svg) try to cram too much information into the space they have been allocated and I am unable to read the text. This can be overcome by clicking through to the image page where the text can be read (except for the last one where further zooming is needed to read the black text "Substantia nigra" against a brown background). It's not ideal to force a reader onto another page to read information, but it's not inaccessible. These are relatively minor concerns and should not adversely affect the article's FA candidature. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding image sizes, my experience from previous FACs has been that it's usually best to stick with the defaults, but I have no problem with enlarging images if that's the recommendation. Regarding the images in the Chemistry section, I really don't know what else to say there. Looie496 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Image size is always a judgement call, and sticking with defaults is usually the safest course. It's not your fault that the amount of information in those three images is too much for the default size. In this case, you have to balance the inconvenience of sending the reader off to another page with the potential problems caused by having over-large images taking up a lot of space in the article. You won't please all of the people all of the time. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if one of our illustration specialists like Evolution and evolvability might be willing to redo File:Synapse_dopaminergique.png? Not only is it hard to read at thumbnail size, it's not very professional-looking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Redrawing could certainly improve readability. Most of the text labels are very short, and could be increased in size and weight (bolded) without making the diagram larger. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Seppi333 might also be of help, given his experience in similar synapse diagrams. I can't commit to any diagram-making this month, but if it's still in need in November, I can have a go. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I could draw the standard dopamine neurotransmission model if a different image is desired. Main question I'd have though is whether or not it should use {{AI4}} for the labels or just normal text in the image file. If the former is used, the diagram should ideally be large enough so that it can be seen clearly in the article; I'd probably just end up drawing the image so that it's a centered page-spanning (i.e., relatively large width compared to height) diagram anyway though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Storage, release and reuptake", paragraph 3: "Tonic dopamine transmission occurs when small amounts of dopamine are released independently of neuronal activity, and is regulated by the activity of other neurons and neurotransmitter reuptake." If it is regulated by neurons, how is it independent of neuronal activity? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
That's one of the few things in the article that I didn't write. I'll look into it. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The intended meaning was that it is independent of neuronal activity in the dopamine-releasing cell, but can be affected by activity in other cells. Even that doesn't quite reflect the source accurately, though -- I've rewritten the whole paragraph in an effort to make it correct and also easier to understand. Looie496 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If several consecutive sentences all use the same reference, there is no need to include the citation at the end of every sentence. You can just include the citation at the end. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Nervous system", paragraph 2: "These dopaminergic cell groups were first mapped in 1964 by Annica Dahlström and Kjell Fuxe, who assigned them labels starting with the letter "A" (for "aminergic")." Perhaps move this statement to the "History" section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems useful to me to explain at that point why the dopamine areas are labeled A8-A14. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Nervous system": "These neurons are especially vulnerable to damage, and when a large fraction of them die, the result is a Parkinsonian syndrome." More specifically, the result is Parkinson's disease. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, our Parkinson's disease article explains this. Parkinson's disease is defined as a parkinsonian syndrome that is idiopathic. Looie496 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to the second sentence of that very article: "The motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease result from the death of dopamine-generating cells in the substantia nigra." Later, in the "Pathopysiology" subsection: "The primary symptoms of Parkinson's disease result from greatly reduced activity of dopamine-secreting cells caused by cell death in the pars compacta region of the substantia nigra." In this context, "idiopathic" means that the cause of neurone death in the substantia nigra is unknown. Contrast this with, for example, MPTP-induced parkinsonism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, actually on re-reading the statement, an idiopathic cause is not specified. We can leave statement as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Parkinson's disease#Classification explains the distinction pretty clearly -- or, at least, as clearly as such an obscure thing can be explained. I personally find these distinctions to be annoying pedantry, but people complain if you don't get them right. Looie496 (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Basal ganglia", paragraph 1: "The largest and most important sources of dopamine in the vertebrate brain are a pair of structures called the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area. These two structures are closely related to each other and functionally similar in many respects." There are two areas called the substantia nigra: one on the left and one on the right. The VTA is so close to the midline that it might be reasonable to call the whole thing a single area. It may be better to remove the statement about two/a pair of structures: "The largest and most important sources of dopamine in the vertebrate brain are structures called the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area. These structures are closely related to each other and functionally similar in many respects." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've reworded it so that it no longer talks about "two" structures. Looie496 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • From "Functions", subsection "Basal ganglia", paragraph 2: "The neural circuitry of the basal ganglia is exceptionally complex." I don't think that "exceptionally" is required. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That might be because you haven't been forced to learn the neural circuitry of the basal ganglia :-). Anyway, I've removed that word. Looie496 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
lol, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the evidence in "Functions", subsection "Reward", paragraph 1 may be better displayed as a bullet point list? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I usually try to avoid bullet lists, but it does make sense in this case. I've converted it as you suggest. Looie496 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Emily (1993)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) and Auree ★★ 02:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Although this hurricane remained mostly offshore, it prompted widespread evacuations with its uncertain track and caused historic flooding in Cape Hatteras on its closest point of approach. I started working on the storm's meteorological history and mostly finished, until User:Hurricanehink took over and conjured an impeccable amount of info on its preparations and impact. After a successful GAN and some extensive cleanup and fine-tuning on my part, Hink and I believe the article is up to standard, ready for its bronze star. Enjoy! Auree ★★ 02:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Emily, a seemingly innocuous storm that was, for most people, very forgettable. However, it threatened most of the Eastern United States and had an unusual track (sound familiar?). It was very memorable for a 17 mile part of the Outer Banks, where record floods left 25% of the population homeless. I confirm the co-nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Radar image could be scaled up
  • File:NCbarrierislandsmap.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Fixed these, I believe. Thanks Nikki! Auree ★★ 17:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslav submarine Nebojša[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This article covers one of the first Yugoslav submarines, which was built in the late 20's using parts from cancelled British WWI L-class subs. She evaded capture by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. She survived as a training boat during the war, and served on in the communist Yugoslav Navy until 1954 when she was struck. She recently successfully went through Milhist A-Class review, and I will be keen to see where further improvements might be found. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 30 September 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) 00:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, any time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • Link launched, scrapped, diesel engine.
    • Done.
  • L-class submarine that was never built Probably better to say that she was never completed since she was actually laid down in December 1917, much like her sister. Both were cancelled on 1 April 1919. Source is {{colledge}}, p. 192
    • Good point, done.
  • [7] is the preeminent source on British subs of this era and should have more details on the late L-class submarines.
    • Nothing that is new specifically about this sub.
  • Specify that the 4-inch guns are deck guns.
    • Done.
  • where she performed a training role Awkward; howzabout "became or served as a training boat"?
    • This has been fixed as a result of adding some more info.
  • Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard, River Tyne, United Kingdom This reads like an address for a houseboat. Rephrase to say that the yard was in High Walker on the River Tyne and I wouldn't bother giving the country.
    • have made it more like a sentence than an address.
  • Why is the construction paragraph covering her propulsion and armament?
    • Have renamed the sections as Design and construction, Service career and Legacy
  • they were designed to reach a top speed of 15.7 knots (29.1 km/h; 18.1 mph) under diesel power and 10 knots (19 km/h) on her electric motors Specify that the speed using diesels is on the surface and on the electric motors is submerged both in the infobox and in the main body. Also disagreement with pronouns (their vs her).
    • Fixed.
  • Do not force the knot and nautical mile conversions to only output in km. Don't specify any output unit and the template will automatically triple convert to miles and km. Both in the infobox and main body.
    • Done.
  • What caliber machinegun?
  • Was she fitted with hydrophones or sonar (ASDIC)?
    • Haven't found any thing specifying that. I assume just directional hydrophones, as only a few of the Group III L-Class subs in RN service got ASDIC.
  • The Italians had claimed they had sunk all the Yugoslav vessels. This should probably be spliced to the preceding sentence with a "despite" or somesuch.
    • Done.
  • Any idea if she was used as a training boat by the Yugoslavs post-war?
    • Yes, have added a bit sourced from a Serbian news site.
  • Put Thomas in title case.
    • Done.
  • This is awfully sketchy to meet the completeness criteria, especially on the post-war career.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Yugoslav_submarine_Hrabri.jpg: the current licensing is correct, but for completeness it would be good to indicate why it's PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Peacemaker67, first and foremost, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. I've engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I have condensed my comments below. There are some minor details that should be addressed, but they are outside the confines of FA criteria. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, WV! Will get right onto those points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I usually prefer to expand abbreviated units on first use (or at least uncommon ones like brake/shaft horsepower)
  • ..."made a very good impression..." - on whom? The Maltese? Whatever RN ships were there?
  • I wonder if it's worth mentioning that Osvetnik was French-designed? I think it might cause some confusion over the nationality of the boat.
  • Same with describing Split as Dalmatian - I doubt many readers will know that that's a region, not a country, or that Dalmatia was then part of Yugoslavia (the point being that Nebojša finally returned to her own country might be lost)
  • Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea might have some more details on her flight from Yugoslavia in April 1941, which was apparently made in concert with a pair of torpedo boats. The edition in Google Books only offers snippets, and I don't have my copy handy at the moment. I can check it later if you need me to. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • All done, Parsecboy. I've added the two MTBs that escaped with her. Thanks for the review. These are my edits. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • I am venturing way out of my comfort zone commenting on this article, so excuse my ignorance.
  • "She was eventually stricken in 1954" I assume this means stricken as in an admiral struck his flag, but could it be linked to an article clarifying what "stricken" means in naval terminology? Does it just mean taken out of service and laid up?
  • "her crew might be retrained and used to operate the recently captured German Type VIIC U-boat U-570, but this idea was soon abandoned." Is it known what happened to her crew? Presumably they did not stay on the ship?
  • Are the names of her commanders and what rank they were not known?
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ice (The X-Files)[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the more well-known episodes of The X-Files, and one of my personal favourites. It's been to FAC before, where it was failed based on prose issues; since that time it's had another thorough copy-edit by User:Miniapolis, whose efforts are greatly appreciated. I'm also aware that I wasn't particularly active during the last FAC, which I assure you won't be an issue this time around. Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to look at this one, and if you haven't seen the series at all before, I would say this is a good place to start. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see this has been through FAC once before and the writing quality has been improved upon, so good job to Grapple X and to copy editor Miniapolis for working on that. The article is of high quality from an important point in time within the series formative period. The writing quality is high level yet also succinct and concise throughout. I especially like the Conception and writing sect and how the subject is placed within a wider context of influence upon it from popular culture prior to its inception. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "an outpost in Icy Cape" Isn't this usually termed the Icy Cape? FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article on the location uses "the Icy Cape" once, and just "Icy Cape" throughout, but I have no idea what local usage would be. GRAPPLE X 12:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps worth looking into? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The USGS list it without the definite article (here), even though they do have a list of variant names for it. GRAPPLE X 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think we should follow that, also sounds better. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you've now added the "the" in, in light of this. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have misraed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "and another is recovered from one of the bodies." Which bodies?
    Those of the scientists already dead at the location, would "one of the scientists' bodies" work better? GRAPPLE X 12:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Changed. GRAPPLE X 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "250,000-year-old item encased in ice" What item?
  • Hawks is only mentioned in an image caption, not the article text.
    Oversight on my part. He's debated as being the real director but without wanting to get into that I've just noted his role as producer. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately the sources in question don't specify this, or I'd have added it. I'm not even sure I could track down the original article as my assumption would be that presuming it to be the correct one would be OR. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would remain intact " What would remain intact?
    Yeah I think the copy-edit lost something here. This is a common enough practice with film/TV censors--you film a questionable scene with more footage than you intend, so that when a censor asks for X amount of material to be cut, you still end up with a scene using as much footage as you had actually wanted: you want a minute to survive so you film two minutes and cut one out. I'll try to reword it shortly. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    How does this look? GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wong is not introduced in the article body.
    Fixed. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Scaring the hell of out of the audience" Is this what the actual article says?
    Fixed. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks good, anymore on the "item" comment? FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    I dug out the sources in question again last night and neither confirm the nature of the object (I get the feeling it would have been something mundane and that the age of it was the key factor). GRAPPLE X 09:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - all my comments have been addressed, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Barbara (WVS)[edit]

  • Support FA status - I am considering nominating an article for FA status and this discussion has been a great example of congeniality, responsiveness and collaboration. It appears to me to meet WP:FA?. The tone is encyclopedic and yet engaging at the same time. I am not a fan of articles that describe television plot lines, but this article has changed my mind. Good fortune on the rest of the review. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I was there, way back when, when this was first submitted. It has come a long way, and I see no reason to not promote it. The copy-edit looks good, all the sources check out (I know this from personal experience), and the page is organized nicely (with excellent photos).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Grapple X, first and foremost, thank you for submitting this phenomenal article for FAC. I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I assess it to meet all the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I have also completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll not be able to archive the URLs used until later this evening, in the office at the minute and unable to access them; but I have made the suggested links and unlinkings. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely response Grapple X! The archiving was merely a suggestion, but it will give you peace of mind in the future should those links change or vanish. Again, you've done an extraordinary job with this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Generally really good, but there are just a few prose points that I would like to see addressed.

  • In the second paragraph of the lede we start with "FBI special agents..." but I htink that a bit of context would be necessary, i.e. we should start this sentence with something like "The plot of the episode follows FBI special agents...". That way we make it explicitly clear that these sentences are describing the plot of the episode. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Added. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "found a 250,000-year-old item encased in ice" - do we have any idea what this "item" was? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not, it's not mentioned in the sources used. I have the feeling (OR, of course) that by the time this was mentioned in an interview, Morgan had probably forgotten the nature of the object and recalled only the fact that it was ancient and buried under ice. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Morgan and writing partner James Wong" would perhaps work better as "Morgan and his writing partner..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Amended. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "Filming" section, we have the following two sentences, "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would last as long as intended if Fox's standards-and-practices officials asked for cuts, no edits were requested. "Ice" was the first significant role in the series for makeup effects artist Toby Lindala, who become its chief makeup artist", which are then followed by a citation. I take it that this citation covers the material in both sentences, but given that the second sentence does not directly follow on from the first, this is not completely clear. I would suggest replicating the citation at the end of the first sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Not my personal preference but I've doubled it up there. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the CampingWorld.com 500 for sponsorship reasons. This is my fourth attempt to promote this article to FA status, the last three failed mainly due to prose issues and a lack of response. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - I maintain my previous stance on this article from the previous three nominations. The quality of the article is much improved since it was copy-edited by the GOCE. There is only two minor points I raise after going through the article:

  • You should ideally add a plainlist template in the ratings section of the infobox per UBLIST.
  • Furthermore, it would be a good idea to archive links to those that do not have it to prevent link rot (except for Racing-Reference which does not have links stored at the Internet Archive because of robots.txt) Z105space (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Z105space: Thanks! I used the template and have been archiving all the links used in the article as I've been going along. Once the links die, I'll replace the links. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose–I'll take a deeper look into the article later but at a glance I noted a major 1b issue: How do we have an article about a race and not include the finishing times? Note: I realize NASCAR scoring is more complicated than just the finishing times, but I believe that is a basic detail that should be included. –Grondemar 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Grondemar: If you mean the margin of victory, there was none, since the race ended under caution (if you follow F1, this is the equivalent of the safety car). If you want the amount of time the race was completed in, I can look into that further and see if I can find a source, but again, NASCAR scoring, as you noted, is more complicated so I'm not sure I can do much with that. Still, thanks for the review! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible at least to include something in the text and table indicating that since the race finished under caution, no finish time nor margin of victory was recorded? I will try to perform a full review of the text this weekend. –Grondemar 03:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably, I'm busy at the moment as well. I'll see what I can do this weekend. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Grondemar: I tried adding something into the post-race section. Better? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've struck my oppose above. I still haven't had the chance to dig through the article but will try to do so this weekend. Sorry for the delay. –Grondemar 19:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see the article has had three (3) previous FAC nominations and it looks like the nominator has taken those to heart and improved upon the writing quality since then. Minor quibbles only here: I'd recommend trimming down the use of quotes but particularly in the sect Post-race comments which is over reliant upon them. Try paraphrasing instead, and/or trimming down total size of quotes used. Also, strongly recommend using archiveurl= and archivedate= fields in cites to archive hyperlinks to Internet Archive, to improve posterity of article in long term. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Will comment where I can. Digging through EBSCO I've found a few print sources that may provide some valuable pre- and post-race coverage:
    • Anderson, Lars (October 16, 2006). "Bump 'n' Done". Sports Illustrated (Time Inc.) 105 (15): 70. 
    • Engle, Greg (October 16, 2006). "Talladega will be less of a grind on a new surface". Sporting News (Sporting News Media) 230 (41): 50. 
    • Galier, Ray (October 9, 2006). "Vickers Causes a Stir on the Way to a Win". The New York Times 156 (53727) (The New York Times Company). p. D9. 
    • Livingstone, Seth (October 10, 2006). "Hendrick keeps testy drivers focused on 'the big picture'". USA Today (Gannett Company). p. 7C. 
    • Livingstone, Seth (October 9, 2006). "Vickers gets first win in fiery finish". USA Today (Gannett Company). p. 11C. 
    • Long, Dustin (October 9, 2006). "Putting 'I' in team: Brian Vickers spins Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr. to win his first Cup race". The Roanoke Times (McClatchy-Tribune Business News). p. 11C. 

Haven't checked to see how much of this is repeat coverage, though I'm sure Engle 2006 might help to expand the background section. The Grey Lady is also a good source to have, in general. 23W 19:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. I supported an earlier FAC but missed repeating that support last time round; sorry about that. I've done some more copyediting; please revert if I messed anything up. Still looks good enough for the bronze star to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias and Grondemar: I hate to pester, but this is now the third-to-last article in the "Older nominations" section and I will NOT be very happy if I need to renominate this after a two-week waiting period for a fifth time. With that, I am asking that you both comment and support if you believe the article is in good enough shape. @Laser brain: It appears by his user page that Ian is not yet fully back, so I'm not asking for a full review, but please let me know if there are still any minor additional tasks I need to complete before promotion is considered. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – images and sources remain sound, as in my previous review. The prose is slightly repetitive in places, but that's more due to the format of the race itself than the quality of the writing. Sorry it's taken me so long to put pen to paper; I have been looking over it. Harrias talk 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Runaway Scrape[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This is part of the Texas Revolution series of articles, and covers what happened in between the Battle of the Alamo and the surrender of Mexican president and military general Antonio López de Santa Anna several weeks later at the Battle of San Jacinto. The civilian population fled in terror from the Mexican army, as did the government of the Republic of Texas. Texian commander-in-chief Sam Houston took his troops on the move, looking for a site to train his raw recruits, causing many to accuse him of being a coward on the run. Santa Anna lost Texas because he also believed Houston was afraid of him, and let his guard down.— Maile (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Not much to add here after looking over the two (2) prior A-level WP:MILHIST reviews. Just incredibly well referenced and researched. One can tell a lot of effort went into writing, documenting, and citing this article. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dank:, thank you for this Support, and for your editing improvements. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Support Maile66, following my review of this article, I find that it easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; and its lede, structure, and consistent citations all follow Wikipedia style guidelines. I also completed an image review as follows and found that all media is good to go. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@West Virginian: Thanks for the review and the support. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66:, you are quite welcome! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the family that ruled England from the 12th to the 15th centuries—a period that changed and shaped a nation from what had become an Anglo-Norman colony. The article failed a FAC back in 2013, largely due to attempting to act as a general history of the period and a history of the Plantagenets (including the Angevin, Yorkist and Lancastrian periods). Since then it has been split with the general history moved to England in the Late Middle Ages and a greater emphasis on the family added here. Since then it has undergone two peer reviews, a copy edit from GOCE and a successful Milhist A class review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 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) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red squares in the Hundred Years' War map animation?
red squires are crucial battles - added to key. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Royal_Arms_of_England_(1198-1340).svg: should explicitly indicate that the design is now PD
  • File:The_Children_of_Henry2_England.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:Henry_II_Plantagenet.jpg
  • File:France_1154-en.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
  • @Reigen:—I think this is your image can you answer this one (pls) thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Same with File:Hundred_years_war.gif, which is tagged as lacking source info
  • On a second look I have removed the gif as it appears to have other issues Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Seal_-_Richard_I_of_England.jpg: since this was photographed in France, which does not have freedom of panorama, should explicitly indicate that the work itself is PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies @Nikkimaria:—I am not sure how to to correctly tag these images. Would you be able to give some advice, please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • For anything published or publicly displayed centuries ago, {{PD-old-100}} or a derivative of {{PD-US}} works - in this case I would suggest {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} for all licensing issues above. That will just leave the two sourcing questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thx for this—More problematic than I thought but I think I have done these Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Comments

This article seems to me of FA quality. A few quibbles about prose before I sign on the dotted line:

  • Typos
    • Montfort becomes Montford at one point, and "manausript" is presumably a typo for "manuscript"
  • General
    • The article cannot make up its mind how to name the conflict that began in 1337. We are offered the choice of "the Hundred Years' War" (with possessive apostrophe) and "the Hundred Years War" (without apostrophe). I don't quibble with "100 years war" in the alt text for the map.
      • A couple of the sources are titled without the apostrophe so I have gone with that—although the Wikipedia pages have the apostophe in their titlesNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • "significant English buildings" – what did they signify? A pity to use "significant" as a mere synonym of "important" or "celebrated" or "large".
  • Origin
    • "a power struggle occurred between the counts of Anjou…" – I'm not clear from this how many sides there were in this power struggle. Was it a free-for-all or a struggle between the king on one side and all the rest on the other?
      • Rephrased to hopefully make clear that it was very much a free for all Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "the unification of the counts of Anjou" – can one unify a count as opposed to his countship?
    • Third para: there's a bit too much "however"ing here. The word is rarely necessary, and the reader's eye is distracted by running into it twice in quick succession.
      • Removed all the howevers....looks much better to me Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Arrival in England
    • "which may have occurred" – "which might have occurred"?
    • "later called The Anarchy" – the relevant WP article neither italicises the phrase nor capitalises the definite article.
    • "the successful termination of the conflict" – successful for whom?
  • Angevin zenith
    • "the marriage of Henry's brother and taxation" – I think that for once an Oxford comma would help the prose.
  • Decline and the loss of Anjou
    • "however his son" – if you're going to have a "however" here you need a comma after it
    • "The official website of The British Monarchy" – no need to capitalise the definite article in mid-sentence (despite the typography of the site in question).
  • Expansion in Britain
    • I'm not sure why we refer to the Treaty of Woodstock in the text but to the Treaty of Montgomery in the (excellent) graphic alongside.
  • House of Lancaster
    • "whom it was claimed was the elder son" – false accusative here: you want "who"
    • "the English economy sunk" – sank?
    • "Hanse League" – link to Hanseatic League?
    • "cloth exports fell" – per cent or percent? We have both in one sentence. According to the MoS per cent is BrEng and percent AmEng.
      • Article tagged as BrEng so per cent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward was slain at the battle of Agincourt" – slain? A bit biblical, perhaps?

That's all I can find to grumble about. The article is thorough but not excessively detailed. A huge amount of information is packed into 8,000 words – very impressive. – Tim riley talk 10:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Now happily adding support. I think this is a very fine piece of work, and meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


Almost support--minor quibbles
  • Some of the prose is confusing.
    • "They held the English throne from 1154, with the accession of Henry II, until 1485, when Richard III died." The family held the English throne from the accession of Henry II in 1154 until the death of Richard III in 1485.
    • "But Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda about handing over some possessions and power while he was still alive to ensure the succession." However, Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda over handing ... Are you saying here that Geoffrey and Matilda wanted Henry to hand over some possessions that would insure the succession, or that Henry was withholding the possessions because he wanted to insure the succession, or am I just totally stupid about this? There are several other sentences that begin with "but" which could also be examined. For example, "But he [Richard] was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners...(although he was respected for his courtly manners and military leadership, Richard was also a ruthless....
      • It was the former, and it wasn't clear—reworded, what do you think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I have now tweaked all the sentences that formally started with "But ". Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • While returning from the Crusade, Richard was captured by Leopold. He was passed to .... Philip II of France overran large portions of Normandy, while John controlled much of the remainder of Richard's lands. -- While Henry the Lion held Richard for ransom (1192–1194), Philip II overran large portions of Normandy in his absence and his brother John acquired control of the remainder of Richard's English lands....? Or, while returning from the Crusade, Leopold of Austria captured Richard and eventually passed him to Henry the Lion. During Richard's captivity, .....
  • just some ideas. I'd be happy to go through this further with you. HOWEVER, it is an excellent article, and you do realize that this are nit-picks. auntieruth (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, have finished reading, made some tweaks on prose. The prose is still confusing, and some of the sentences are still long and confusing. When @Hchc2009: has had a look, let me know, and I'll re-read. I think you also need to deal with Ealdgyth's questions about sources. I'm not up-to-date on those. auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Auntieruth55:—Hi Auntieruth, I've been through @Hchc2009:'s first and second pass comments. Would you be able to have another look at the prose. i don't expect there to be much churn? Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment Wow. Cant fault this on prose; its very clear and well written through out. Leaning Support in liew of a source review. We need subject matter experts here; pining Ealdgyth & Johnbod Ceoil (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Comments I seem to remember suggesting or supporting the split the nom describes some while ago, & I think it has worked very well.


Thank you for your kind words, you did suggest the split and I am very glad you think it has worked well. Your comments leave me a bit more than I expected but I will crack with trying to answer them Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are stretches with no images that could be filled. Becket's assassination for example is easily illustrated.
  • Lead: "England was transformed from a colony, often governed from abroad and considered less significant than other European monarchies, into a sophisticated, politically engaged and independent kingdom". I don't like or believe this unreferenced sentence for several reasons, especially the first part. England was never a colony, either strictly or loosely, and was not "often governed from abroad". Unlike the Angevins, Cnut and the Norman kings spent most of their time in England, and regarded it as their most important possession. What "other monarchies" was England "considered less significant" than, in say 1200? Unlike France and the Empire it was a unitary state actually controlled by the monarch, which the French kings hugely envied. All other European monarchies (without going as far as the Bulgarians etc) were pretty tiny. "Politically engaged" is I suppose one way to describe the last years of Plantagenet England, but probably not the best.
  • Good point, as the sentence wasn't redeemable I have removed, don't think anything important was lost? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Angevin zenith" I'd include the titles in the list of "issue", at least for those who reached adulthood, as you later do with similar lists. Same again for the children of Edward I later.
  • "His cruelty was demonstrated by his massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre" - historians of the Crusades tend to be more sympathetic to the Massacre at Ayyadieh . Saladin dragged his feet on the normal negotiations for the ransom of prisoners to use up the remainder of Richard's campaigning season, and to allow his reinforcements to arrive. The Siege of Acre (1189–91) ended on July 12 and the massacre was not until August 22. By the conventions of the day Richard's actions were not inappropriate (in best Official Enquiry language). "Ruthlessness" would be better than "cruelty".
  • Re Bouvines "The battle greatly contributed to the formation of the absolute monarchy in France." Hmm. Absolute monarchy in France begins, conventionally enough, "Absolute monarchy in France slowly emerged in the 16th century and became firmly established during the 17th century." This is what people mean when they use the term. The article doesn't mention Bouvines btw. The French monarchy in 1214 still only really controlled a small part of France, with huge limitations on its power elsewhere. The source dates from 1836 I see; I doubt modern historians make so much of it as Smedley, though it did end the Dukes of Normandy and would have done so for the Counts of Anjou if the kings had not foolishly re-granted the fief.
  • Not really about the Plantagenets, is it? So I have removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "( Anjou), Brittany, Maine and Touraine,..." not all linked before I think
  • "and built a magnificent, still-extant shrine for the Confessor" yukky phrasing.
  • "...the pope offered Henry's brother Richard the Kingdom of Sicily, but the cost of making the claim good was prohibitive. Matthew Paris wrote that Richard stated: "You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon—step up to the sky and take it down'." Henry pur chased the kingdom for his son Edmund, which angered many powerful barons. He was bankrupted by his military expenses, ..." Somewhat puzzling without context, though the Valois Angevins managed it, for a while. You might mention that the Emperor was fairly firmly in control of Sicily & had no intention of handing it over. It sounds as if the "military expenses" were to do with Sicily, but they weren't, were they?
  • "instead his son married John of Gaunt's daughter Catherine of Lancaster, creating the title Prince of Asturias for themselves." grammar
  • "The prince fell ill and returned to England, where he soon died." - He was virtually bed-ridden for the last 10 years of his life, after Spain, from a mysterious affliction, which should really be mentioned.
  • " During the minority of Henry VI the war caused political division among the Plantagenets, Bedford, Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester, and Cardinal Beaufort. " reads mysteriously, given that the only mention of Bedford so far supressed his title. They were all H6's uncles, weren't they? Why not just say so?
  • "...and later murder of Henry VI extinguished the House of Lancaster." unreferenced, & it's far from certain he was murdered, isn't it?
  • Well I have added probable and sourced to ODNBNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • " In 1506 Archduke Philip returned Edmund and he was imprisoned in the Tower." no link? Who was he anyway?
  • "Richard III had asserted that her father Clarence's attainder barred his children from any claim to the throne and that her marriage arranged by Henry VII to Sir Richard Pole was not auspicious." Eh? The marriage was probably in 1487, after Richard's death anyway. The quality seems to be deteriorating in these later sections - many links missing, and fewer refs.
  • Ok, Far too many missing links now, which I won't go on adding myself.
  • More later Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Johnbod:— I have attempted to pick up from where you appear to have left off and added links where they appear to be missing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod:—I still need to find some more suitable images but do you have any further notes at this point? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments Oppose Some minor bits for now, and I'll have a look through the earlier sections tomorrow in more detail.

  • "The king was no longer solely the most powerful man in the nation" - who else other than the king was the most powerful man in the nation after Magna Carta?
  • "a pitiful state later known as the Great Slump" - I couldn't see the Great Slump label picked up again in the main section, which felt odd if it was important enough for the lead
  • I've redrafted the lead to the more general social, political and economic problems and moved the Great Slump reference into the body.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Crime was rampant, and was often perpetrated by destitute soldiers returning from France." - I couldn't find the crime or destitute soldiers referenced in the main text (but apologies if I've missed it!)
  • "These children included nine sons (Richard, Oliver, John, Geoffrey, Henry, Osbert Gifford, Eudes, Bartholomew and [probably] Philip) and three daughters (Joan, Maud and probably Isabel)." - I found the [probably] a rather odd inject in square brackets, particularly as Isabel doesn't get them...
  • I don't think the capitalisation of "king" is consistent with WP:JOBTITLE.
  • There were many of these, but I think they are now all changed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There's inconsistency in the way that century is presented (e.g. "12th century" vice "twelfth century")
  • ""Plantegenest" (or "Plante Genest") had been a 12th-century nickname for Geoffrey V, perhaps because his emblem may have been the common broom, named planta genista in medieval Latin." - Plant, who's cited here, gives several other explanations other than just the emblem version.
  • "but that the term "espace Plantagenet" was acceptable." - should "espace Plantagenet" be in italics, since it's French? The meaning should be pretty obvious to most people, I guess, but a translation would also be good for absolute non-French readers! :)
  • "While Henry held Richard for ransom valued at 100,000 marks (1192–1194), Philip II overran large portions of Normandy in his absence" - the bracketed years didn't read smoothly to me; my eye expected it to be an equivalent sum of money...
  • "This brutal act drove Thomas and his adherents from power." it may have seemed brutal to some (but not, for example, to the nobles involved...) but we need to attribute that, otherwise it feels like judgemental editorial language.
  • "To obtain financial support, Edward summoned a precedent-setting assembly known as the Model Parliament, which included barons, clergy, knights, and burgesses." - I don't think it was known at the time as the Model Parliament, was it? Isn't that a much later label, and not often used nowadays in parliamentary studies?
  • "Among those arrested was the King's cousin Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter, his wife and 11-year-old son. (His wife was released two years later, but their son spent 15 years in the Tower until Queen Mary I released him). " - the bracketed sentence felt like poor drafting.
  • "Margaret was attainted; the strategic position of her estates on the south coast (a perceived invasion threat in which Reginald was involved) and her embittered relationship with Henry VIII precluded any chance of pardon, but the decision to execute her seems a spontaneous, rather than a premeditated, act." - this felt like a very long sentence to me.
  • "The poor state of the economy (as his government levied a number of poll taxes to finance military campaigns) resulted in the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, followed by brutal reprisals against the rebels." - again, I don't think the bracketed section is brilliant prose.
  • "While depopulation stemming from the Black Death led to increased wages, static food costs and a resulting improvement in the standard of living for the peasantry, the English economy sank to a pitiful state under Henry." is the link/contrast here really relevant? The depopulation from 1348 onwards did lead to increased wages for the peasantry, but there had been several economic ups and downs before we get to Henry in the 1420s, surely?
  • " Her execution was botched at the hands of "a wretched and blundering youth ... who literally hacked her head and shoulders to pieces in the most pitiful manner"." I couldn't tell from this who had written the quote.
  • In some of the quotes, the article wikilinks names etc. I think this runs contrary to the MOS, but I can't remember where I read it...
I think the MOS says that's fine, but you should do it with some consistency if you do it. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Found it... "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If it is the last quote you are referring to, I have now removed the links. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "who accompanied Duke William of Normandy at the Conquest of England in 1066." - is the capitalisation of "Conquest" right?
I'd say "Norman Conquest" but "conquest of England" Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Copper-alloy boar mount found on the Thames foreshore near the Tower of London, London in October 2012..." This bit under the image needs a reference, as the last section of it goes beyond simple description of the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's from the Museum of London on the image file, which I don't think needs a ref. Annoyingly, they don't specify that it is a livery badge, which might be added. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd normally expect it to be referenced directly in the article itself, e.g. to https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/530737, where the information comes from. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Under the Plantagenets England was transformed although this was only partly due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets." - this read awkwardly.
  • "Winston Churchill stated in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John, than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns." - This is a very typical, Whiggish Churchillian quote: but it doesn't reflect current scholarship.
  • Now I quite like this quote as a way of demonstrating that these kings weren't necessarily blessed with a reformist plan but take you point and have removed it. I think you objected to it before! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Plantagenets were also responsible for the construction of important English buildings, such as... Windsor Castle ". I think Windsor Castle was constructed by William I.
  • I have removed from lead as not really reflected in the body.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ""Angevin" can also refer to their descendants and the period of history in which they reigned." - accept for John's descendants; I don't think anyone calls Henry III an Angevin usually?
  • True, so I have removed this clause. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "unified the houses of Anjou, Normandy and Wessex." - While true, it's not an observation I've seen made in many other contexts. Is it a typical point?
  • If this is true, although untypical, is this an issue? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that the article (particularly given the broad temporal period concerned) should focus on highlighting the major issues raised by historians etc., rather than focusing on facts that aren't prominent in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair point, I'll excise when I do the next batch of edits. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Henry I had the marriage annulled to avoid strengthening William's rival claim to his lands." - well, at least Normandy.
  • "Henry I refused to relinquish any power to Geoffrey and Matilda that would be necessary for them to ensure the succession prompting a quarrel." - the more typical explanation for this is that Henry was worried they would use the Normandy castles to seize Normandy for themselves, while he was still alive.
  • " He later lost his support, enabling Geoffrey to continue with the conquest of Normandy." - "lost his support" seems a little too simple a statement here.
  • "According to William of Newburgh, who wrote in the 1190s, Count Geoffrey decided that Henry would receive England and Anjou for as long as he needed the resources for the conflict against Stephen. Count Geoffrey instructed that his body should not be buried until Henry swore an oath that the young Geoffrey would receive Anjou when England and Normandy were secured" - different historians take different views about the reliability of this chronicler's account.
  • I have left this in as it is cited to Gillingham, let me know if this is a significant issueNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Try Warren, Henry II, pp.45-46 for a critique of the Newburgh account. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Louis VII of France divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine on 18 March 1152," - wasn't it annulled?
  • "This disheartened Stephen, whose wife had recently died, and he surrendered. " I don't think Stephen surrendered to anyone.
  • "This angered Henry's eighteen-year-old son, Henry the Young King, who had not received any lands from his father." - more to the point, the castles given away technically belonged to Henry the Young King...
  • "The younger Henry rebelled before dying of dysentery." - it would have been unlikely to have been the other way around... ;)
  • " Arthur, Richard's nephew and nominated heir, obtained Anjou, Brittany, Maine and Touraine, while John ruled over England and Normandy." - the wording here isn't quite right; the "nominated heir" bit was nowhere near as clear, and "obtained" suggested he was given it, rather than being supported by some of the local nobility in what was effectively a civil war. The subsequent narrative then skips over the 1200 Treaty of Le Goulet, where Philip abandoned Arthur and recognised John's rights, and goes straight to the 1202 conflict. This section also misses the major debate over the role of economics in the struggle between Richard/John and Philip on the continent.
  • @Hchc2009:—could you give me a steer on the economic point? It is a major debate that I have missed in my ignorance! :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Try Barrett's "The Revenues of King John and Philip Augustus Revisited" in King John: New Interpretations, which you'll probably find visible on Google books. He summarises the argument pretty well. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reworked the sentence and added a couple of sentences on the debate, thx. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • " French barons supported Philip." - which French barons...? I couldn't work out who this was supposed to refer to.
  • "After re-establishing his authority in England, John planned to recapture Normandy and Anjou. The strategy was..." - there were several different strategies between 1202 and 1214.
  • Expanded to make clear this was his final, 1214 strategyNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "John failed to abide by the terms of the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War" - historians are pretty much convinced that neither side abided by the terms of the peace agreement.
  • NB: I'm opposing for now, as I think the text needs a fair bit of work. Jones gets a mention below by Ealdyth; he's a popular historian, and can be useful as a citation for some sorts of statements (in a positive way, he sometimes "states the obvious" that hardcore medievalists take for granted, so never write down in their books!) but I don't think he needs to be used extensively in this sort of article, where we should be able to rely on more specialist historians for the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I have now replaced all the sourcing to Jones to more reputable sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Hchc2009:— quite a number more than I was hoping for. I will grind through these next week and see where it leaves us. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ta. Might also be worth having a look at the collapsed "Reigns of the Plantagenet monarchs of England" and "Timeline" section. The latter seems to be a duplicate of the information in the first. The "Reigns..." contains some rather judgemental language, though, and a rather odd selection of images... ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have removed these two collapsed sections. After all the revisions they look a little out of place. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hchc2009:—I think I have covered all your points except those on the broach. Are there any more notes you can give? Otherwise I will start in earnest on those from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs). Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • We have "origin" then we digress to "terminology" then we go back to "angevin kings" - wouldn't it make more sense to do "terminology" "origins" and then "angevin kings"?
  • Arrival in England:
    • Need a citation on the quote "the heir to the kingdom".
  • "Henry I refused to relinquish any power to Geoffrey and Matilda that would be necessary for them to ensure the succession prompting a quarrel." With my background, I eventually figured out what you meant with this sentence, but it is very confusing. Suggest "In order to secure an orderly succession, Geoffrey and Matilda sought more power from Henry I, but the king refused and the two sides quarreled."
    • "Three events allowed for the Angevins' successful..." wordy - you can remove the "for"
  • Angevin zenith:
  • "even his favourite son, John, had rebelled" - but Geoffrey (archbishop of York), Henry's illegitimate son stayed loyal. He also played a big part in defeating the 1173-74 revolt.
  • "Legitimate" added and sentence on Geoffrey's loyalty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm unable to find a single review of Jones' work - which you're using to support "Contemporary opinions of Richard were mixed. Although he was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners, he had rejected and humiliated the sister of the king of France, deposed the king of Cyprus and later sold the island, refused to give spoils from the Third Crusade to nobles such as Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and was rumoured to have arranged the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. His cruelty was demonstrated by his massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre." The problem I have with this is in a couple parts. One - you say "mixed" but the emphasis is on "bad" stuff - it greatly outnumbers the "good". I would also be curious as to who the various opinions that go into Jones' statement are. The biographers of Richard, as well as other historians are pretty clear that contemporary opinion, while finding fault with Richard, usually considered him praiseworthy. Gillingham's article in the ODNB on Richard says "Inevitably historians attached to the courts of Philip Augustus and his allies took a hostile view, but not even Philip's panegyrist conceals his underlying admiration for Richard. According to Guillaume le Breton, had Richard been more God-fearing, and had he not fought against his lord, Philip of France, England would never have had a better king. Some English historians such as Coggeshall and William of Newburgh mix praise with criticism. Newburgh disapproves of Longchamp and thinks Richard overgenerous to John. A German contemporary, Walther von der Vogelweide, believes that it was precisely Richard's generosity that made his subjects willing to raise a king's ransom on his behalf. Richard's reputation, above all as a crusader, meant that the tone of contemporaries and near contemporaries, whether writing in the West or the Middle East, was overwhelmingly favourable. According to Baha ad-Din, Richard was a man of wisdom, experience, courage, and energy. Ibn al-Athir judges him the most remarkable ruler of his time for courage, shrewdness, energy, and patience. In France St Louis's biographer Joinville portrays Richard as a model for St Louis to follow. In England he became a standard by which later kings were judged. Even in Scotland, thanks to the quitclaim of Canterbury, he won a high place in historical tradition; according to John Fordun, he was ‘that noble king so friendly to the Scots’ (Chronica gentis Scottorum, 2.271)."
  • Now reworked these paragraphs and the Jones citations are removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've got a copy of Jones in front of me now (the revised 2013 edition) and there is nothing on page 128 (or in any of the coverage of Richard) that says anything about contemporary opinions of Richard. So where did this opinion come from? I checked the index and there is no entry on Richard's contemporary opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Reworked (as above)—Jones reference removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning from crusade and passed to Henry the Lion." - you mean "his custody passed", right?
  • There is no discussion of William earl of Salisbury? Or Geoffrey, Archbishop of York? Or the other of Henry's illegitimate offspring? They would be considered Plantagenets also (Weir lists them in her various sections).
  • Well they almost certainly would not have been considered Plantagenet's even though they were acknowledged. I have added a paragraph to recognise this fact. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline:
  • "It was rumoured that Arthur was murdered by John himself," while that is one rumor - there are others that John ordered him drowned, but did not do the deed himself. Turner's biography of John says (p. 91) that Arthur either died at John's hand or at his orders.
  • "The battle greatly contributed to the formation of the absolute monarchy in France." is cited to a 1836 work. I do not think it's safe to say such a bald statement of causation of absolute monarchy based on an almost two hundred year old work. Especially as the article linked to ...Absolute monarchy in France ... itself says that absolute monarchy slowly emerged in the 16th century and was firmly established in the 17th.
  • "his son, King Henry III, maintained the claim to the empire until 1259." ... no, Henry maintained his claim to the continental lands. Given that earlier in the article you are equivical about there being such a thing as the Angevin Empire. I note this is sourced to Jones also...
  • Sourcing to ONDB added and wording revised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "As a result of John's actions, French barons supported Philip." something is missing in this sentence - do you mean that all of the French barons or some of them or many of them? And yes, English historiography uses "barons" as a synonym for "leading nobles" but it's very jarring to see "barons" used in a French context as there is no rank of "baron" or such a thing as the "barony" in France. "Lords" or "Nobles" is what you use in to refer to the French equivalent of barons.
    • I usually see just plain "Magna Carta" not "the Magna Carta"... for example Huscroft Ruling England p. 150 "put his seal to Magna Carta" or Turner King John p. 104 "concerning Wales in Magna Carta"
  • It was grammatically correct as it was, but I have corrected on the grounds that it might be unusual. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The official website of the British Monarchy presents John's death as the end of the Angevin dynasty and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty." but other sources don't - including ones you use such as Weir. Cover both sides or drop the statement.
  • Both sides covered in the terminology section, this is just to indicate one particular view without repetition of the argument Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Baronial conflict:
    • Oh, now we mention illegitmate offspring? Why now and not for Henry II and Richard?
  • As above—illegitimate offspring referenced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Marshal Protectorate issued an amended Magna Carta as a basis for future government." - i've never seen that period of Henry III's minority called the "Marshal Protectorate" - I checked the source 1215 p. 271 and there is nothing on that page about the information in that sentence. This is also not the greatest source to be using - it's very much a popular history (even if Gillingham helped). It's possible that the page numbers differ a bit (I have the 2005 Touchstone edition) but I checked pages around and nothing there. Nor is there an entry for "Marshal Protectorate" in the index.
  • Why "Bartholomew and [probably] Philip" but "and probably Isabel" in the same sentence?
  • the paragraph on Henry relies a lot on Jones again. ANd it's very disjointed .. we hear that Henry identified with Edward the Confessor because of the struggle with the nobility, but we've not yet heard that Henry had difficulties with the nobility - that comes later in the paragraph, after the bit about naming his son Edward and building a shrine to Edward.
  • Jones references removed, alternative found Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at the revised edition of Jones (2013) I found the section on Henry III and Edward the Confessor on pages 200-201. In the article, this set of sentences is sourced to Jones pp. 234-235: "Despite the Treaty of Lambeth, hostilities continued and Henry was forced to compromise with the newly crowned Louis VIII of France and Henry's stepfather, Hugh X of Lusignan. They both overran much of Henry's remaining continental lands, further eroding the Angevins' power on the continent. Henry perceived many similarities between himself and England's patron saint, Edward the Confessor, including his struggle with the nobility." But... the revised edition pp. 200-201 (which does discuss Henry's devotion to Edward) does NOT say anything about the Treaty of Lambeth, Hugh X of Lusignan. Nor does it back up "...including his struggle with the nobility." Jones draws a parallel with Edward's struggles with his ministers and having come to the throne in a time of civil disorder. The phrasing of Jones, however, says nothing to draw a parallel with Henry's troubles with his nobility. Jones is discussing the early part of Henry's reign - when his troubles were mainly with his ministers. I don't think you can say "struggle with the nobility" here. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "adding the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom through his marriage" uh. No. Edmund's son Thomas did NOT add those earldoms to the kingdom - they were already IN the kingdom. Yes, eventually, they passed to the royal estate ... WAY down the road. Again - this is sourced to Jones - does Jones REALLY say that Thomas' marriage added the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom? If he does, wow. You need to NOT be using him as a source, as that's so wrong it's breathtaking.
  • A slip in from ce, corrected and sourced to ONDB since you object to Jones. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I object to Jones, having now had a chance to see it. There are no footnotes. There are not even attempts to say where he's getting his information. It's not just a popular history (ala Weir) but it's almost a novelization at times. As an example - p. 112 of the revised edition (2013) starts the chapter with "Geoffrey archbishop of York stared up, like every other visitor to Dover, at the great castle being built above the harbor. It was September 1191 and work had progressed since the late King Louis VII had toured the building site with Henry II. Now Geoffrey could look up at its imposing square keep and think of his father..." That reads like a bad soap opera. Or later in the same paragraph where Jones baldly states that Geoffrey was the son of Ykenai, which I know from my own work on Geoffrey's article is not a settled fact for historians. But Jones says its a fact. This is the problem with using popular histories instead of actual historians. You end up stating things that are not accepted by actual historians. I would not consider it nearly as reliable as other sources and given the problems I've run into with it, I'd suggest someone with access to a copy of the 2012 HarperCollins edition audit every citation to it. You'd be better off using Desmond Seward's The Demon's Brood which DOES have endnotes so you can at least track down where he got his information. Other good sources would be Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, Prestwich's Plantagenet England (which is used slightly, but should see a lot more use - but why are you using TWO different editions? Use one, the most recent one.), the Yale University bios of the various kings, Clanchy's England and its Rulers, and others. There are too many good academic works out there to be relying on a book with no footnotes/endnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk
  • Well, all sourcing to Jones has now been replaced by more reputable sources Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "He was bankrupted by his military expenses" - who was? The last person referred to in the previous sentence is Edmund Crouchback.
  • " in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands." uh. Gascony was kept. It remained in English hands for quite a bit longer - until the 100 years war was ending up, in fact. And this is sourced to a UN document? Can't we find something ... more academic and rigourous? is this the document in question? If so, it does not support the full text that's subscribed to it - "The pope offered Henry's brother Richard the Kingdom of Sicily, but the cost of making the claim good was prohibitive. Matthew Paris wrote that Richard stated: "You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon—step up to the sky and take it down'." Henry purchased the kingdom for his son Edmund, which angered many powerful barons. He was bankrupted by his military expenses, and barons led by Henry's brother-in-law Simon de Montfort forced him to agree to the Provisions of Oxford, under which his debts were paid in exchange for substantial reforms. He was also forced by Louis IX of France to agree to the Treaty of Paris, in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands. The treaty stated that Henry would retain "islands (if any) which [he] should hold ... as peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine"." I'm pretty sure that the UN judgement only has any bearing on the last bits and thus the whole earlier section of that statement is unsourced.
  • Source added for the previous bit. As for the latter I don't know if you are aware that the Channel Islands are not part of the UK. This often ignored in more academic works as is the fact that they remain part of the Duchy of Normandy. They have a status as a crown dependency on the basis that they are "governed" by the Duke of Normandy, presently this is QEII. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Constitutional change:
    • We gave marriages for John and Henry III's children, but not now? or only partially? Consistency.
    • "Among her eleven children were earls of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, and countesses of Ormond and Devon" - should be "Among her eleven children were the earls of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton, and the countesses of Ormond and Devon"
  • I think this is grammatically correct as it stands Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not. I read it as saying that among her 11 children were several that were earls of Hereford, several that were earls of Essex, several that were earls of Northampton, several that were countesses of Ormond and several that were countesses of Devon. In fact, two of her sons were Earl of Hereford AND Essex in succession and a third son was created earl of Northampton. One daughter married the earl of Ormond, and another married the earl of Devon - but none of this is clear from the article text - which lumps the five children who held titles into some sort of mass that's hard to distinguish. 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk
  • Addred the as the path of least resistance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "who was executed by order of Mortimer and Queen Isabella" -but we don't know who Queen Isabella IS yet. Confusing.
  • "His military campaigns left him in debt, and to enable him to raise more taxes through the frequently summoned Parliaments, he tried to gain support for his policies among the lesser landowners and merchants". Several problems here. The preceding sentence is "Because of his legal reforms, Edward is sometimes called "The English Justinian", but whether he was a reformer or an autocrat responding to events is a matter of debate." which doesn't really mesh with the bit about military campaigns and leaves the whole debate undebated. The military campaign sentence is also confusing - switching tenses and leaving subjects dangling. What were his attempts to gain support with the lesser landowners and merchants and why are they connected to his attempts to raise money? Totally lacking in context.
  • Expansion:
  • " Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king. Llywelyn maintained that he was "entirely separate from" England and Edward considered him to be "a rebel and disturber of the peace"." ... okay. First you state baldly that Llewelyn was a subordinate of the English king, then the next sentence it comes out that well, Llewelyn didn't think he was subordinate... which is it? If Llewelyn objected, it's pretty clear there was some dispute and the first sentence is not quite true. And why use "a subordinate" here... there are better terms. Again, you're relying on Jones when you should probably be using the various biographies of Llewelyn and Edward available.
  • Okay, that's enough. There are some serious issues with the article. Still has some issues with trying too much to be a political history of the dynasty without really covering the actual members of the house. There are members of the house left off or covered in only slight bits. Yes, it's improved, but not nearly to FA status. There are some factual errors here that need fixing. The prose has issues. There are places where I spot checked sourcing and came up with issues. It's taken me two and a half hours to do this much of the review, and I've still got over two thirds of the article to go. It's not FA ready and probably needs some serious serious work to get there.
  • I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose and strongly suggest engaging Hchc2009 to help with many of these issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

More:

  • Arrival in England:
  • "Louis VII of France divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine on 18 March 1152, and she married Henry (who would become Henry II) on 18 May 1152. Henry consequently acquired the Duchy of Aquitaine, greatly increasing his resources and power." Weir pp. 60-61 does not say a thing about "greatly increasing his resources and power". There is also some lost nuance here - as Weir points out that Henry only became Duke of Aquitaine in right of his wife, which probably needs to be made plainer as this fact has a bit of importance later.
  • After some digging at the resources Aquitaine looks more of a overhead than an asset so I have removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Angevin zenith:
  • "Of Henry's siblings, William died as a child and Geoffrey died unmarried and childless,..." William was born 1136 and died 1164 - at age 28. This isn't a child. Nor does Weir (p. 60) say William was a child. And you list 8 children - but Weir gives 9 (8 sure, one possible). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.) gives only 8, however. (Note that Weir is the only place I see the existence of Philip, son of Henry II and Eleanor, even mentioned.)
  • Corrected William's details, left at 8 children as Weir says there is only one source for this and it is not contemporary Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Decline and loss of Anjou:
  • "John's defeat weakened his authority in England, and his barons forced him to agree to the Magna Carta, which limited royal power. John failed to abide by the terms of the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War, in which rebellious barons invited Prince Louis, the husband of Blanche, Henry II's granddaughter, to invade England. Louis did so and John died in October 1216, before the conflict was conclusively ended." is all sourced to Weir p. 74. The only thing that Weir p. 74 actually sources here though is "John died in October 1216"... the rest is not supported by Weir p. 74. Weir is merely a genealogical account - she does not give much chronological data ... so we have a pretty big issue of unsourced material here.
  • Baronial conflict:
  • "Eleanor – wife of William Marshal's son (also named William), and later the English rebel Simon de Montfort" is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 306. But this only says that Eleanor married William Marshal, son of William Marshal. No mention of her marrying Simon de Montfort.
  • Small issue - the correct citation for current citation 44 "Richardson 2004 p. 9" is more like "Richardson 2004 pp. 9-13" as all the illegit offspring given are actually ennumerated on pages 11-13. A nitpick - Philip is given as "possibly" John's but Isabel is just listed as "alleged". Note also that Charles Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis Royal Bastards of Medieval England p. 179 gives as sure bastards of John "Joan, Oliver, Geoffrey, Richard de Dover, Osbert Giffard, John, Henry". Possible bastards are "Richard and Eudo (or Ivo)". Doubtful offspring are given as "Isabel la Blanche". Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed) gives only Joan and Richard de Warenne, lord of Chilham, but they don't list all bastards.
  • "Joan was the best known of these, since she married Prince Llewelyn the Great of Wales." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 328. But p. 328 discusses Joan, Henry III's younger FULL sister, who married Alexander II of Scotland, not Joan, Henry III's older half sister, who married Llewelyn the Great. Source does not support the statement given for it.
  • "Margaret of England (1240–1275). Her three children predeceased her husband, Alexander III of Scotland; consequently, the crown of Scotland became vacant when their only grandchild, Margaret, Maid of Norway, drowned in 1290" is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 203 - but that page does not support the statement at all. All it supports is that Margaret (who is usually known as "The Maid of Norway" not plain "Maid of Norway") died in 1290 while on board a ship to Scotland. Nothing about drowning, being the only grandchild of Margaret of England and Alexander III, etc.
  • "Edmund Crouchback (1245–1296), who inherited the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester and the earldom of Leicester after Henry defeated Montfort in the Second Barons' War. Henry later granted Edmund the earldoms of Lancaster and Ferrers. From 1276, through his wife, Edmund was Count of Champagne and Brie." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75. But this source does not say anything about Edmund inheriting the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort after Montfort's defeat. Weir says Edmund was created Earl of Leicester on 26 October 1265 and Earl of Lancaster on 30 June 1267. Being created as an earl is not the same as inheriting it. Henry III granted Edmund the lands and honours of Montfort. Weir also notes that it was Edmund's second marriage that gained him Champagne and Brie.
  • Is Prestwich 2007 the paperback edition of Plantagenet England? I ask because the current citation 60 goes to Prestwich 2007 p. 101 - but this does not appear to fully support the information given there (it appears to be the start of the section discussing the events leading up to Evesham, which if this is a different edition, makes sense that the numbering of pages would be off).
  • I've removed sourcing to Prestwich's book though still use his ODNB article and replaced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conflict with the House of Valois:
  • The entire third paragraph staring "Fighting in the Hundred Years War spilled from the French and Plantagenet..." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 102, but the only thing in that paragraph that p. 102 supports is the part "and John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, the Black Prince's brother, married Peter's daughter Constance". The rest is not supported by that page of Weir (not even the bit about John of Castile's son marrying Catherine of Lancaster because Weir only says that Katherine, daughter of John of Gaunt and Constance of Castile, married Henry III of Castile. Weir doesn't say who Katherine's father in law was.
  • House of Lancaster:
  • "Henry married his Plantagenet cousin Mary de Bohun, who was paternally descended from Edward I and maternally from Edmund Crouchback. They had seven children:" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 124-130. The children numbers are correct, as is Henry's marriage to Mary de Bohun, but Weir just says that Mary was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun by Joan, daughter of Richard FitzAlan, a descendant of Henry III.
  • Added ref to pp 79-80 where this is detailed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • House of York:
  • "By the mid-1470s, the victorious House of York looked safely established, with seven living male princes. Edward and Elizabeth Woodville themselves had ten children, seven of whom survived him" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 139-145, but this does not support the first sentence.
  • It is supported (each living Prince is listed), but have added a sentence to make it clearer Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Richard seized the throne, and the Princes in the Tower were never seen again. Richard's son predeceased him and Richard was killed in 1485 after an invasion of foreign mercenaries led by Henry Tudor, who claimed the throne through his mother Margaret Beaufort. He assumed the throne as Henry VII, founding the Tudor dynasty and bringing the Plantagenet line of kings to an end." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 145 but the only thing that page supports is "Richard was killed in 1485" and "Richard's son predeceased him"
  • Added source for campaign and source for end of Plantagenets Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Tudor:
  • "When Henry Tudor seized the throne there were eighteen Plantagenet descendants who might today be thought to have a stronger hereditary claim, and by 1510 this number had been increased further by the birth of sixteen Yorkist children." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75 - but there is NOTHING on that page relating to Yorkists or Tudors.
  • Error slipped in via copyediting, should have been page 148. Now corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Warwick was implicated by two further failed invasions supported by Margaret using Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Edward IV's son Richard of Shrewsbury, and Warbeck's later planned escape for them both; Warwick was executed in 1499. Edward's execution may simply have been a precondition for the marriage of Arthur, Prince of Wales to Katherine of Aragon in 1501." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 1, but nothing on Carpenter 2004 p. 1 supports this at all. All Carpenter 2004 p. 1 talks about is the background and development of the term Britain as a geographical term for historians prior to and around the Norman Conquest.
  • Haha, this one I can answer easily, there are two Carpenter 2004 works cited, this should have linked to the ONDB. Now fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note that just because there are all these problems with sourcing, I'm not of the opinion that they are deliberate. It's difficult when someone starts working on an already developed article - it's very easy to mix sourcing up or just assume that any citations already present are correct. The way to avoid those issues is to check every single citation yourself - but that's a LOT of work. I do think ALL the citations in this article need checking - I've checked those for works I have, but I don't have the editions of Jones used, nor do I have some of the other works used. Until that's done, though, I'm going to have to stay opposed to this article's promotion - there are just too many sourcing issues for me to be comfortable with it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this @Ealdgyth:—I am working my way down (from top to bottom) HCHC2009's comments at the moment and will try and get to yours in a bit. As you can probably guess there were more than I was expecting. Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello @Ealdgyth:—I have tried to address your points, do you have any further notes? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)
Shortcuts:

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.

Super Nintendo Entertainment System[edit]

Notified: Anomie, WikiProject Video games

This article's status currently states that this article is a featured article; however, there happen to be a lot of errors, most of which are unverifiable claims, tagged by [citation needed] and [unreliable source?] tags. I have not (yet) noticed any dead links, but this article has a lot of problems, so I am hoping that we could delist this article and leave it like that until we manage to complement it once again. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - You notified yourself on the FAR and not the original nominator? Also, you didn't notify the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I must have rushed what I was doing, and, because this is my first time, I told for myself do something which is a not-to-do. I am sorry, and how do I notify the WikiProject of something? Also, am I in trouble for the clutter? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Following references deadlink: 3, 8, 31, 42, 43, 44, 47, 85. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Pretty bad, it is. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Links 8, 42 and 43 repaired with archiveurl. Link 3 already has archiveurl. Link 31 is a print reference. Links 44, 47 and 85 load for me, do not appear to be dead. -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I can also confirm that 44,47 and 85 are working fine.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Banff National Park[edit]

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Peru[edit]

Notified: Victor12, Materialscientist, Peru Wikiproject

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article no longer meets the standards.

  1. The history has become too long and with focus on random areas (such as Inca worship and Fujimori inflation statistics).
  2. Citations are missing from several parts of the article. For example, foreign relations and military sections.
  3. Too much focus is placed on unimportant topics, such as water supply and sanitation, making for a terrible structure.
  4. The reference formats are too inconsistent.
  5. Demographic statistics are of dubious neutrality, especially when considering the complex racial structure of the country.
  6. Too many images, causing excessive text sandwiching.
  7. The article is wordy as a whole and does not follow WP:Summary guidelines.

These are just a few of the many problems in the article. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the criteria for FA status.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where you have followed step 1 of the FAR process (raising issues directly on the talk page and giving editors a chance to respond). --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Laser! Good to see you again. I made a comment on several of these same issues back in July 2014 ([11]), these include: the references, the use of images, the increasing use of text contrary to summary guidelines. None of these points were addressed at the time, despite promises by an editor working in the article to do so, and the article has fallen under further disarray. Victor12, the editor who had the most extensive knowledge of the topic, as well as being the article's original FA nominator, seems to have stopped editing Wikipedia (except for a few, minor and sporadic edits)—at this time, nobody is addressing other important points raised in the talk page ([12] and [13]).
I'd volunteer to work on the article and fix it, but have no time at present (in addition to being tied to an AN/I issue that is taking away what is left of my free time in WP). The article's FA status may be giving the wrong impression to potential editors who can help it. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Bridges, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, the following issues were left unresolved with a project-level consensus that this article should be reviewed here.

  1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
  2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
  3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
  4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:

  1. "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
  2. "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
  3. The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
  4. "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
  5. Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
  6. Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
  7. Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
  8. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
  9. "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
  10. The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
  11. Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
  12. The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
  13. "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
  14. The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
  15. "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
  16. "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
  17. References 3 and 103 are dead links.
  18. The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
  19. Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
  20. Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
  21. Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

With regard to suggestions above:

  • "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
Category:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type
Landmark aptly describes the structure, designated by NRHP, and referred to as such:http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-old-pulaski-rollercoaster-will-continue-to-ride-1.415651?page=all
  • The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining
  • "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ
  • Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
is there one? remove?
  • Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
countless road articles in route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical
  • Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
Would seem to add unessential information into an already long article. An exit list has been previously deleted by consensus:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659
  • I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
please do so
  • "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"
  • The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
  • Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
remove????
  • The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
fixed
  • "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence
announcement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED
  • The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
split
  • "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
fixed
  • "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet."
  • References 3 and 103 are dead links.
ref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link
  • The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
Map focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010. 
  • Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
location= Hoboken, NJ added
  • Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
removed
  • Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.

Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Rwanda[edit]

Notified: Amakuru, Lemurbaby, BanyanTree, WikiProject Rwanda, WikiProject Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it currently falls short of being comprehensive and well-researched. Parts of the article are rather dated. For example, the data on religion is from the 2002 census, not the more recent 2012 census, and much of the data in the economy, education and health sections is from the late 2000s. There are some questionable statements, such as "It is not clear who funded the next batch of 100,000 XO-XS laptops nor the additional laptops leading to the 400,000 XO-XS laptops", which is sourced to a wiki site. The section Millennium Development Goal 6 lacks context, with no explanation of what this MDG is. There is a general need to update the article, which quite a few relatively old "as of" statements present. I have personally rewritten the sport section, and have tried to encourage other editors to help with improving the article, but not much progress has been made. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An inconsistency: the introduction states that "Rwandans are composed of three ethnic groups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa", whereas the demographics section states that "the population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: there's a general problem here, because it is quite a hotly disputed topic in sources as to what the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups actually are. In some sources, Banyarwanda are regarded as one ethnic group, sharing a language and culture, with Hutu and Tutsi being social classifications, while in other sources the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa are themselves regarded as separate ethnicities. The text tries to explain this issue, and I've changed the lead to match what's in the Demographics section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but I still think this part needs work. The lede states "The Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda, although within this group there are three subgroups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Twa are a forest-dwelling pygmy people descended from Rwanda's earliest inhabitants. Scholars disagree on the origins of and differences between the Hutu and Tutsi; some believe differences are derived from former social castes, while others view them as being ethnicities or tribes". The scholars who consider Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups can't consider that the Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic group. I think we need more of a sense that there is disagreement between scholars who think there is one ethnic group, and those who think there are multiple ethnic groups (both in the introduction and the demographics section). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, Cordless Larry. I think part of the difficulty here is that the term "ethnic group" is not clearly defined. In the UK we tend to talk of an "Anglo Saxon" ethnicity, but that is of course itself a hybrid of various different peoples, not just Angles and Saxons, but some native and other peoples as well. The main source I used in this section is Mamdani's book "When Victims Become Killers", which looks at some of the arguments in the matter but doesn't really give a definitive answer. One thing he says is "If we understand an ethnic group to mean a cultural group, comprising those who speak a common language, then the Banyarwanda must be considered East Africa's largest ethnic group". So he's saying it doesn't matter what their origins are, as long as they share language and culture, then they're a single ethnic group. I've just edited the article and replaced "ethnic and linguistic" with "cultural and linguistic" to make this more clear, and I've removed the bit saying Tutsi and Hutu may be ethnicities, to more explicitly say that those scholars on that side of the fence believe they come from separate origins, but without treading the minefield of whether that means they're separate ethnicities or not. Let me know what else I can do to make this clear. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. I think the new text works better than the old, and while there's more that could be said, I think this is about right for a main country article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Education and health[edit]

The main focus for my efforts this weekend is going to be bringing the health section into line. I would like some feedback on one thing though - at the time of featuring, this as the version of the article: [14]. Then, education and health were in one paragraph (which I had modeled on a similar paragraph over at Cameroon, an earlier FA). The education part has not changed much, apart from the addition of some over detailed analysis of laptops. The health section, however, has been hived off into a separate section, and largely filled with non encylopedic and over detailed information.

My question is whether it makes sense to fold these two back into one paragraph, with just a summary of the details of each. The thing to bear in mind is that this is strictly a summary article. Country articles can never hope to go into very much detail on any particular topic, which is why we have child articles Education in Rwanda and Health in Rwanda to provide much more detail on that. In fact, the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates does not suggest including any detail about education and health at all. Personally I would favour the approach of updating the paragraphs from the FA version, to reflect up to date information, but keeping the two subjects in one short section, as before. What think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of the country featured articles do have health and education sections, often as sub-sections of demographics. Do they naturally belong together in one section? I'm not sure they do, personally. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've now rewritten the health section, it gives a general overview, with citations and some relevant statistics, but without going beyond two paragraphs. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru, that now looks much better. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sport sub-section[edit]

Amakuru's post above reminded me that I meant to mention that the sport sub-section that I wrote is currently quite long. There is perhaps a need to create Sport in Rwanda, to move the content of the sport sub-section there, and to summarise it for the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I had thought of that myself a while ago. That's a very good idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Things that need updating[edit]

Lead

  • Confirm relgion figures. - Already done.
  • Check females in government posistions fact - Done.

History

  • Last paragraph updated for recent developments - Done.

Politics and government

  • Mention the two term limit and current proposals to remove it - Done.
  • Update with recent sources for criticism of constitution - Done.
  • Update numbers of deputies with more recent election, including facts about female majorty - Done.
  • Check on latest status of courts (in particular gacaca) - Done.
  • Update facts and figures on corruption - Done.
  • UPdate cites on the RPF dominance - Done.
  • Update relations with France and Francophonie - Done.
  • Update relations with Uganda and Congo - Done.

Administrative divisions No changes needed

Geography

  • Make sure still 149th largest country (given new countries that have come into place) - Yes it is.
  • Make sure climate figures are up to date - Yes.

Economy

  • Update GDP figure - Done.
  • Update USD exchange rate - Done.
  • Update plans for EA shilling - Done.
  • Update farming figures, and GDP contribution - Done.
  • Update crops - Done.
  • Update industrial sector figures and products - Done.
  • Update tourism figures - Done.
  • Update media and communications - Done.

Infrastructure

  • Update water figures - Water is up to date.
  • Update electricity figures - Electricity up to date.
  • Update transport

Demographics

  • Make sure basic figures and densities are up to date - Done.
  • UPdate faith figures - Done.
  • CHeck languages

Culture

  • Check national holidays - Done.

Cuisine

  • Check beers - Done.

Education

  • Check and update - Up to date.

General

  • Go through all references, check for deadlinks and format correctly.

@Cordless Larry: now that the sport and health has been dealt with, the above is a list of things I'd like to check and update now, based on a read through of the article just now. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Amakuru. I'm incredibly busy off-Wikipedia at the moment, but that looks like a good list. If I get some time, I'll help out making the checks you identify. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've not looked at this for a week or two, but it's still on my to-do list and I hope to get back to the tidy up very soon... please keep open for now!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked for more recent tourism figures yesterday, but could only find official statistics to 2011, though more recent figures have featured in reports such as this, so they must exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I also found this potential source for beers. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the number of public holidays from 11 to 12, but the source also lists Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Are these full public holidays too? If so, it should be 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The relevant law suggests that they are official holidays, so I will update to 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry. I have no idea why I looked at the new source and thought there were still eleven. I must have counted very badly!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and Amakuru: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to commit much time to this, but Amakuru has been chipping away at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry it's taking so long, (I've been very busy in real life), but as Cordless Larry says, I have been doing it little by little over the past few weeks. If it's OK I'd like to keep it open until I can polish off the remaining items on the list above, and then we can see where we are. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World[edit]

Notified: Clyde Miller, WikiProject Video games

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of it not being up to snuff in terms of standards for Featured Article. Throughout its page it uses references considered unreliable for video game articles (i.e Armchair Empire). Also the prose should be reworked, with sentences like "Empires‍ '​ multiplayer component, powered by GameSpy, is freely available to any player who has an updated version of the game. Though as of 2007, this game is no longer supported by GameSpy for online play." as its both poor and outdated. Overall not something I should have the bronze star on it in its current state. GamerPro64 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Time has not been kind to this article. Yep, at the very least the whole thing needs a through scrub and the lede is way too short for FA status. – czar 22:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The lead does not summarize most of the content and the Reception section could probably be reworked. Anarchyte 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC No-one working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - This isn't going anywhere. GamerPro64 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Standing concerns over reliability of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist - Per my comments. GamerPro64 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist and re-assess as B-class. The prose needs improvement, not all of the sources are appropriate per WP:VG/RS, and the lead disappoints. Could be a GA candidate given some editing, expansion, and (re)sourcing. Esquivalience t 22:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to take a shot at saving this one. I remember supporting it when it passed back in the day, and the lead editor was a Wikifriend of mine. It should be fairly easy to polish up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that's worth holding off delisting this for the time being. Jimmy knows how to get stuff done. GamerPro64 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It's going to be a bigger job than I initially thought, but I'm going to work on it steadily until it's done. Thanks for everyone's patience in advance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Hey, if you get stuck into it, we can cut considerable slack for time...we're happy to leave it open for as long as it takes if y'er still plugging away at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Much appreciated. It might take me a couple weeks, but I'll whip this thing into shape. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
            • It's starting to come together. There's plenty of work ahead, but I can finally see the end of the tunnel. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
              • Everything's done except the lead and Reception, which are half finished. Progress will be slow this week because of limited Internet access where I'm at, unfortunately. I'm in the home stretch, in any case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
                • Still dragging here, but rest assured that I haven't given up. I should be able to return to full work on the article this week. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • Thanks for keeping us informed! DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • I wrote up a Reception section and finished the lead. The article's quite a bit smaller than it used to be, but I've tapped every worthwhile source I could find. How does it look, guys? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: and @Esquivalience: can you please offer an opinion on the improvements? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • This article is a massive improvement thanks in part to Jimmy. I'm striking my vote to Delist and voting to have it keep its FA status. GamerPro64 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Great unilateral save. Esquivalience t 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys - will ping the others who've commented above and if we have a consensus I'll close it up. ...hey @Czar:, @Anarchyte: and @DrKiernan:...who do y'all feel about this article now? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice work on the cleanup, though I think the gameplay should be better described in the lede for FA status. (And the gameplay section presumes that the reader knows what real-time strategy genre gameplay entails.) Still nothing I feel strongly enough to hold up the train. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 21:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tamils[edit]

Also note: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil people

Notified: Vadakkan, Sundar, Subramanian, Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Dravidian civilizations, Wikiproject Tamil civilization

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review. The article has been a prime candidate for FAR since 2010 and at that time Dana boomer and I had some discussion on getting this here. However, I didn't follow through on time. We've had posts about some of the problems on the talk page: Nov 2010, Oct 2013, Talk:Tamils#Featured Article Review. The major issues include (a)quality of sources used within the article, (b)image use -- while copyright vios are a regular concern, the random use of images without context is also a problem (c)Undue weight to certain aspects, including synthesis of information from external sources, (d) some copyvios have been inserted into the article and have stayed in for a while (a deeper check is still needed). I have also started a deeper source evaluation here; hoping it would be ready by the time we go to FARC. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years a lot of unsourced content has been dropped in front of references. There's a lot of OR and POV stuff that's being edit warred over even during this review.—SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. Sourcing, stability and copyright problems. A couple of years ago, I tried to fix up Azerbaijanis and eventually gave up after a large amount of work because it proved to be a wasteful time sink. This article appears to be suffering in a similar way, and I doubt it will be possible to fix it through this process. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Got to know about the FAR just today. Agree, the quality of the article has come down in the recent years. May I ask to kindly allow a reasonable period of time? —Vensatry (ping) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

I note recent editing by blocked users. The articles's size and broadness/complexity means it needs a detailed FARC to come though with its star intact. Concerns are fidelity to sourcing, stability and risk/presence of copyvios. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, but that's only one part of the whole mess. If you see this revert of mine (since reinserted) you'll notice how some of the POV nonsense is taking over the article:
    • "The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka reflected some elements of Tamil martial traditions which included worship of fallen heroes (Maaveerar Naal) and practice of martial suicide. They carried a Suicide pill around their neck to escape the captivity and torture."
    • "A remarkable feature besides to their willingness to sacrifice is, that they were well organized and disciplined. It was forbidden for the rebels to consume tobaccos, alcohols, drugs and to have sexual relationship."
  • It is really unfortunate as this is a subject that has significant scholarly study, but over the past three to four years the article has become a place to promote fringe perspectives and most editors who've been interested in maintaining this article have simply given up. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements from February 2011; dead external links from August 2015; apparently unsourced weasel words, such as "what is considered to be folk Hinduism"; mixture of American and British spelling; inclusion of material in the lead that is not found in the article body. DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Any update here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Midway[edit]

User:Jparshall inactive. Notified: WikiProject Military history
WP:URFA nom

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in three cleanup categories: Wikipedia articles needing page number citations (tagged September 2010, June 2013, July 2013, October 2014, June 2015), articles with unsourced statements (tagged March 2015), and articles with dead external links (tagged July 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see what needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've made a start on fixing up the references. I hope to complete this tomorrow. Can you read through the article and look for any gaps and errors? One that is sticking out for me is that there is a section on Japanese casualties, but not on the American ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, the references are repaired, but there is a pile of uncited material. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed one broken cite, but there's a fair amount of work to be done. Nothing too onerous, but it will take me a week or two to add the missing cites, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. Thanks for the changes and work so far, but the article is still tagged for citation needed, clarification and pages needed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Moved here now - I note the [citation needed] tags still present, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Unsourced statements from July and August 2015; tagged as needing clarification and page numbers. DrKiernan (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    Doesn't look too serious. I will do another pass over the references on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep We have corrected all the bits needing citations, clarifications and page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - article now looks to be up to scratch as far as I can see following the recent work that has been done to it. Some minor points:
    • The notes next to the references don't really seem to be in-line with current practice and some seem to be a little judgmental / opinionated re sources. I'd suggest removing them.
    • There are some minor inconsistencies in the references and further reading section IRT presentation of the Naval Institute Press (sometimes also presented as "United States Naval Institute Press", "U.S. Naval Institute Press" or "US Naval Institute Press" etc.) I fix it myself but I'm unsure which is the preferred style here.
    • I did a minor copy-edit, added some bibliographic details / formatted some refs, made a few other changes [15].Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • While it is the United States Naval Institute, the publishing arm is Naval Institute Press. Set all the references to this.
      • I have removed some of the footnotes, and merged some into the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Query I have started creating Category:Aircraft carrier units and formations after noticing that USN and IJN carrier divisions were redirecting to each other (eg. Carrier Division 5). Currently the Japanese carrier divisions are at ordinals, eg Fifth Carrier Division, rather than the numerical-at-end-of-designation USN style. I think that it's possible that IJN carrier divisions started off their wiki-existence in USN style. So my query is is ordinals correct (5th Carrier Division, *not* Carrier Division 5) for the IJN? In that case, the article links need to be updated. Meanwhile the USN World War II divisions will eventually end up as Carrier Division Five (United States) etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Georg Forster[edit]

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

Review section[edit]

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 australiaonthemap.org.au (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)

Comment

  • 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kusma: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Back from the dead (marking exams and other business meaning no wikitime at all), back to normal not-enough wikitime. Will report on progress as it happens, hopefully during July. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am having difficulties with the "Works" section, it is a completely random mess in my opinion. I am uncertain how to best approach it between OR and copyvio concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Why not just remove the works section then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Would anybody object if it is gone? —Kusma (t·c) 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe I am saying that, but the list should stay imo. Granted, it is a bit messy and borderline-useless for most average readers, but someone interested in in-depth research about Forster may find the information useful. I trimmed a few entries with no conceivable immediate usage and sorted the list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It does look a lot better (thank you!) and does not compare too poorly to some other Works section in FA-class biographies. Something like Charles Darwin bibliography, while desirable, should not be necessary here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned up some of the more obvious problems with citations, switched to "surname, given name" format, and removed the optional publisher locations. Unfortunately several of the references include non-standard information and additional remarks, where I have no real clue how to improve them - or if it's even necessary. And I lack all of the older sources to add eventually missing details. Another look on the reference progress and additional advice would be great. I hope, we can give old articles a bit of leeway :), but can clean up some more if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

I have moved this here to clarify who thinks what about whether this article is kept or removed. So please comment here if you think it now meets FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The notes are still a bit of a mess, with lots of problems in formatting and consistency. I'll start going through them as I have time, and then I'll do a read-through of the prose for any other problems. I'm hoping we don't have problems with missing page numbers from inaccessible sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems to be within criteria now. DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

Gadget850 is retiring; Notified: WikiProject Scouting
WP:URFA nom

Review section[edit]

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)

  • Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section focused on referencing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per opening statement. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - Per DrKiernan's comments. GamerPro64 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to take the opportunity to edit this article to meet the FA requirements.
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bfpage: I am happy to hear that, we have plenty of leeway to leave these as open for considerable time to get them cleaned up...so go for thy life....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bfpage: please let us know when you feel satisfied this page meets criteria or at least when we should all look at it again. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The article was proposed to be deleted in July. My first response was less than a month ago. I have done some confirmation of the references and done some refining of the prose. I have contacted other editors who have contributed to the article in the past and notified them that the article is under review. It is fairly long and will take more time. The reasons cited for delisting the article are mentioned above and are based upon the comments of Nikkimaria. My concern is that POV issues may arise and that those who 'don't like' the topic may begin to add to the list of issues. The Boy Scouts in general are are controversial group of topics, though the editing history on this article appears to be stable. I would like to leave a message on the talk page of the Project Scouting letting interested project members know that the article is undergoing review. Is that appropriate?
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I left a message at the WikiProject in July, but it does no harm to leave another. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
According to the editing history there at least two of us who have made 52 edits since the review was initiated. In addition, the guidelines describing the FAR process strongly encourages those nominating the FA article for review to aid in its improvement. This has not happened yet.
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Umm, I don't follow. This is the FA review process.....realistically this will be kept open as long as there is active work going on to improve it, which in the past has spanned months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: I have re-read your post. As FAR delegate I can't really keep/remove candidates if I have edited them heavily, so I won't be doing that. If no-one else is interested in working on it, I will delist it and it can be improved later and renominated at FAC. All the FA star is convey current status. I understand if folks are too busy or not enthused enough. I'll give it a week.01:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The nomination appears to be stalled: the issues I identified in the opening statement remain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard
URFA nom
Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Review
  • Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
  • Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
  • Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
    • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
    • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
      • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
  • Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
    • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
  • Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
    • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • instead of:
    • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
    • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
  • There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
    • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
  • On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
  • Sentences should not start with numbers.
  • Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
    • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
  • These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
    • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
  • Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
    • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

  • I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
  • Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
  • I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
  • I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
  • Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
  • No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Update
  1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
  2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
  3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
    • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
    • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
    • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
    • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,
    Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
    has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)
  5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
  6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...
Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)
  1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
  2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
    • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
    • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
  3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
  4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
  5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maralia:, @DrKiernan:, fresh eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Thanks for taking care of the specific issues mentioned above. This is getting close to ready, but the prose isn't quite there yet. I undertook a major rewrite of the Planning section in an attempt to demonstrate a more logical flow. I still think this article would benefit from a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Maralia: I have read through and tweaked a few phrases, but I suspect I've reached the limit of my ability. The "Expansion proposals" section feels very long and somewhat incidental. It also seems to assume a fair bit of knowledge of Adelaide landmarks and geography. To someone reading from further away, does the article lose anything significant by deleting the heading and first three paragraphs of that section? --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled, but while the issues with the original article at the time of its writing seem to generally have been fixed, I think it's out of date. There is no mention of the extension in the lede, and gets all of two sentences in the article, which seems drastically short since it's both politically controversial and probably the signature public transport policy of this term of the Weatherill government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My reason for not putting any more about the current proposal to extend is that it is currently still only a proposal. I agree there could be an update that there are now four versions of the proposal in 2015, but it doesn't belong in the lead until it is actually happening; there have been many other proposals that have not eventuated. The political controversy probably belongs just as much in Rymill Park or Weatherill government. I need help from someone else to polish the text further, as FA-standard text is not what I usually practice. --Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I can understand it not going in the lede on that basis, but there still needs to be more details in the relevant section of the article since it is a significant political issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the quality of the text is fine.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no substantive delist votes remaining. DrKiernan (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • ozroads.com.au is a self-published source.
  • Last two sentences of the second paragraph of Development not sourced
  • First paragraph of Buses is not sourced
  • The article would really benefit from a map of the route
  • I would expect a more detailed route desription for the busway – from one end of it to the other, describe the direction it travels in, features it passes, type of development around it, suburbs it goes through, etc. See the route descriptions of Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, Forrest Highway for some examples of how a route from point A to point B can be described – readers should be able have a basic idea of what a journey on the route is like.
  • The Route table, which uses {{AUSinttop}}, can have an interchange column turned on. This will allow the location column to be used for the actual suburbs, which is its purpose.
  • Does any reference show the distances ad being exactly 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 km? If not, don't use a false precision.
  • Converted speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 5 – the extra precision doesn't serve any purpose for readers
  • In terms of structure/organisation, I would usually put a description-type section first, before a history-type section. This allows readers, especially those not familiar with the subject or area, to understand more of and have some context of what is discussed in the history section.
  • The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so there shouldn't be information in there that isn't in the rest of the article – I don't see O-Bahn etymology, passenger capacity, operated by Light-City Buses, and current passenger numbers elsewhere in the article.
  • The lead seems quite short and an inadequate summary of the article – whole sections aren't mentioned at all (Effects on local development, Environment).
  • Has an infobox been considered? {{Infobox rail line}} has some appropriate fields, and allows ones that aren't applicable to be skipped. The route diagram could also go in the infobox.

Those are the more major issues issues I can see – I haven't done a full check for MOS or other minor/copyediting issues. - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to address all of those at once tonight, but am making a start...
  • OzRoads is a secondary reference for two points about the MATS plan, the text probably is suitable by just removing it, but they are offline sources difficult to access.
  • It appears the unreferenced sentences were referenced until a significant copyedit in April seems to have just dropped the reference, so I have put it back.
  • I've cited the first sentence of that paragraph, haven't found a WP:RS for the rest yet.
  • I've tried making a few maps for Wikipedia, but my computer system is not really up to the job yet. I think the SA roads datasets has the relevant data with a suitable licence. I hope to get a suitable computer within 12 months.
I've learned a new parameter for {{convert}} - thanks :-)
Route table, lead and infobox can wait for another session.
--Scott Davis Talk 14:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=687056797"