Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2016 [1].

Sarawak

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sarawak, the largest state in Malaysia in terms of land area, one of the largest timber exporter in the world, famous for its natural wonders such as Mulu caves and rainforest biodiversity. Sarawak is located on the island of Borneo. This article has been checked against the Good Article criteria and all the references are uniform. The lead has a concise summary. The article has also been checked against grammatical errors during the good article nomination. Any suggestions to improve this article to FA status is welcomed.Cerevisae (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: A quick skim of the lead shows that the word "state" crops up an awful lot, and we really need to use some different words! Also, quite a few sentences begin with "The", which is best avoided, and "Earliest human settlements in Sarawak date back to 40,000 years ago at the Niah Caves" feels like it should begin with "the" as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Sarawak.svg: what is the copyright status of the original work? - Done Cerevisae (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sarawak_1888-97_Sc13.jpg: what author death date are we using to get that tag? - Author is unknown. According to PD Malaysia, it can be counted from the publication date of the stamp. Cerevisae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Batu_Lintang_POW_camp,_Sarawak,_Borneo_taken_on_or_after_29_August_1945.jpg: per the tag, when/where was this first published? same with File:The_unconditional_surrender_ceremony_of_the_Japanese_to_the_Autralian_forces_in_Kuching,_Sarawak.jpg - First publication dates of both images not stated at Australian war memorial. But according to PD Australia, both images can be counted from the date they were first taken. Cerevisae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sarawak_anti-cession_demonstration.JPG: source link is dead, and which of the given rationales applies? - "For anonymous or pseudonymous works copyright subsists for 50 years after publication unless the author is made known." Cerevisae (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sarawak_during_the_formation_of_Malaysia_(16_September_1963).jpg: given the date, what is the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Malaysian_Rangers,_Malay-Thai_border_(AWM_MAL-65-0046-01).JPG - Done Cerevisae (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Timeline_of_evolution_of_political_parties_in_Sarawak.svg should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Done Cerevisae (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reference style The point of having "retrieved on" dates is that if the link goes dead, the reader can go find an archived copy from that date. But since you include the archive links here, there's no need to include "retrieved on" dates; they just bloat up the references which have two other dates too.—indopug (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I'm not so sure if we should remove the accessdate parameters entirely. The archiveurl and archivedate parameters are often edited by bots and they use the accessdate as the reference for finding the archived version. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reminding. However, I have removed all the accessdate parameters for references which have the archive links. I do not remove accessdate parameters for those without archive links. If you felt that it is inappropriate, feel free to restore them. Cheers. Cerevisae (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why I insist on having the accessdate parameters is because it helps in case we have to switch to a different archive in the future. I remember when the archive.is was blacklisted, a lot of editors removed the archiveurl and archivedate parameters entirely. Luckily the accessdate was still there, so a bot could then restore the archives from a different service. Considering situations like these, I feel it is useful to keep them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems overly cautious to me. Note that WP:CITEREF states that, even without considering the archive links, the accessdate is only "required if the publication date is unknown". So it's actually doubly redundant in the triple-date cases I'm talking about.—indopug (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

  • Infobox
  • 'Division' could be linked to Divisions of Malaysia. - Done
  • 'Head of State' would be clearer for non-expert readers than 'Yang Di-Pertua Negeri'. -Done
  • There is no ref for HDI - Used the 2000 data. 2010 data not found.
  • (11th) would generally be taken as 11th in the world, but it links to States and federal territories of Malaysia, so presumably means 11th in Malaysia. This is misleading and better omitted. -Done.
  • The infobox is too long. I would leave out the section on Postal Code, Calling Code and Vehicle Registration. -Done. Shortened the three sections.
  • The note at the end of the infobox also adds to its length. It would be better as a reference at the end. - Shortened the paragraph.
  • "surrounding the independent state of Brunei." Only the land border. This is misleading. - Changed to bordering the independent state of Brunei.
  • "total population of this region is 2,636,000" This is unclear. It would be better to say "of Sarawak". - Done.
  • "Trading relationship with China lasted from 8th to 13th century AD." This is ungrammatical and too general. Chinese ceramics from one dig do not indicate a trading relationship between Sarawak and China. It may indicate that Santubong was trading with China, but it could also be the profits of piracy or the result of indirect acquisition if Santobong acquired the ceramics from a trading partner which in turn obtained them from China. - Changed to "A series of Chinese ceramics dated from 8th to 13th century AD was uncovered at the archeological site of Santubong." Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It came under the influence of the Bruneian Empire in the 16th century." What does "It" mean here? According to the text below, it was only Kunching which was under the influence of Brunei in the 16the century, and Sarawak as a whole did not come under their control until the 19th. - Done. Changed to coastal regions of Sarawak Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During World War II, it was occupied by the Japanese for three years before being ceded as a British Crown Colony in 1946." This wrongly implies that the Japanese ceded it to the British. - Done. Changed to "After the war, the Brooke family ceded Sarawak as British Crown Colony in 1946." Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1960 to 1990, this region also experienced the communist insurgency." I would avoid the word "region" as unclear (except when referring to the regions of Sarawak). In this case does it mean Sarawak only or Sarawak and Sabah? - Done. Changed to "Sarawak". Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Gawai Dayak festival is only celebrated in Sarawak. The traditional musical instrument, sapeh, is well known in Sarawak." The article on Gawai Dayak says that it is also celebrated in Indonesia. Perhaps "The Gawai Dayak is an annual festival celebrated on a public holiday, and the sapeh is a traditional musical instrument." - Done Cerevisae (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Manis paleojavanica (Asian giant pangolin) bone that had not developed into a fossil, dated to 30,000 BC, was found nearby [29] as well as in the Mesolithic and Neolithic burial sites inside the Niah Caves." I do not think this is important enough to be worth mentioning. Countless bones and fossil must have been found. Also the grammar has been wrong as you are saying that one bone was found in several different caves. - Done Cerevisae (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Pangeran Muda Hashim able to surrender Sarawak to Brooke when he was merely the Sultan's representative? - Pangeran have to honour a treaty signed by him and James Brooke. James Brooke appointment was later accepted by the Sultan of Brunei by the use of force.Cerevisae (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some copy edits. Tell me if you prefer me to stick to commenting. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC) - You are welcome to do copyedits on this article. Thanks a lot. Cerevisae (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments.
  • "installed Pangeran Muda Hashim into the Brunei Court" I do not understand this. Installed as what and how did he have the righ to install someone in the Brunei court? - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his mining rights" What mining rights? You have not mentioned any. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both James and Charles Brooke" Which Charles Brooke. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in the Malaysian context, Brooke is viewed as a colonialist." This does not sound quite right. Maybe "However, Brooke is viewed by Malaysians as a colonist." - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dynasty adopted the policy of paternalism to protect the interests of the indigenous population and their overall welfare." This is tendentious. You should make clear that this is how they saw themselves rather than being an impartial verdict. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 49. This states what is said in the main text in the source's own words, which adds unnecessarily to the length of the article, and could be deleted. This comment probably applies to other notes. Also, part of the note relates to the 1950s, and should be a separate footnote. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest you consider having separate sections for notes and citations. It is not a requirement, but I think it would help readers. - In process... Cerevisae (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the draft constitution contained irregularities," What is meant by "irregularities" here? It does not seem the right word. -Done. Removed the "irregularities". Cerevisae (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hesitate to say so as the article is already excessively long, but a couple of sentences on the history between 1891 and 1941 would be helpful. -Done. Cerevisae (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besides, Vyner Brooke's wife, Sylvia Brett, also tried to discredit Anthony Brooke while trying to install her own daughter to the throne." This reads rather oddly, but I am not sure how to amend it. - Done. "Vyner Brooke's wife, Sylvia Brett, tried to defame Anthony Brooke while attempting to install her own daughter to the throne."Cerevisae (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • " the Council Negri" Negri is not explained. - It is the Sarawak state legislative assembly. Cerevisae (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak drafted an 18-point agreement" A country cannot draft. Also I think the alternative name of 18-point memorandum is better. - Done Cerevisae (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clandestine Communist Organisation". You do not explain that this was a Sarawak group. Also the article on the CCO states that it was formed in 1971, and in the 1960s the group operated as the Sarawak People's Guerrillas. Is this incorrect? - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Changed the name to SLL because SLL is the most prominent group existed before NKCP in 1970. Cerevisae (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kalimantan" I suggest adding "(Indonesian Borneo)". - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Sarawak government started to establish New Villages along the Kuching–Serian road to prevent the community from helping the communists." This is unclear. What community and how did the villages prevent help to the communists? Also New Villages should not be capitalised. - Done. "security-guarded settlements" as clarification. Cerevisae (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The head of the Sarawak state is the Yang di-Pertua Negeri (also known as TYT or State Governor), a position which is largely symbolic, appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (king) of Malaysia." Does the king act on the advice of the Malaysian government? If so, you should say so. - Done Cerevisae (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak has been the political stronghold of the ruling Alliance Party" the stronghold implies tha main stronghold, and it would be helpful to specify that it is a Malaysia wide party. I suggest "Sarawak has been a stronghold of the Alliance Party, the ruling party in Malaysia" - Done Cerevisae (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the last three paragraphs of 'Government' confusing. First you give an account of politics up to 1987 that it is so telescoped that it is unclear what you are talking about. Then you go back to 1970, and in the last paragraph you say that parties in the BN coalition have not been active, even though you say above that the BN is dominant in Sarawak. - Done. Rearranged the sentences into chronological order. Clarified that only the locally-based BN component parties is active in Sarawak politics. Cerevisae (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 39 local governments in Sarawak" This sounds a bit odd. I would say 39 districts. Agreed. Cerevisae (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The regiment had helped the Brookes to pacify the state, and taken part in guerilla warfare against the Japanese, in the Malayan Emergency and the Sarawak Communist Insurgency against the communists." This sentence is confusing. A country is pacified, not a state, and you appear to say that the regiment took part in guerrills warfare during the Malayan Emergency. Also this is the first and only time you mention the Malayan Emergency. The link says it was a communist uprising between 1948 and 1960, but this is not mentioned in the history section above, where you jump from the end of the secessionist movement of the 1940s to self-government in the 1960s. - Malayan emergency only happens in West Malaysia, it has nothing to do with Sarawak except that Sarawak had sent some Rangers there to fight the communists in West Malaysia. Basically, Malaysia had two separate communist insurgencies. Cerevisae (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1888 Sarawak, together with neighbouring North Borneo, and Brunei, became British protectorates," In the history section above you said that it was independent until 1946. added another sentence at the end of first paragraph of "Brooke Dynasty" clarify that it was a British protectorate until 1946. Cerevisae (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi claimed that Brunei had dropped its claim over Limbang."You have not said that Brunei made such a claim. -Done. Cerevisae (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak is generally divided into three ecoregions." generally? -Removed "Generally" Cerevisae (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third region is the mountainous region along the Kalimantan–Borneo border and with the Kelabit (Bario), Murut (Ba'kelalan) and Kenyah (Usun Apau Plieran) highlands in the north." What does "with" mean here? - Done. Restructured the sentence. Cerevisae (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lothosols and lithosols make up 60 percent of the land, while podsols accounts for 12 percent of the Sarawak land area." Very few readers will understand this, and there is not even an article on lothosols. I would suggest spelling out the meaning or deleting. - Deleted the lothosols Cerevisae (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Total exports as a percentage of GDP was more than 100 percent in 2013 while total trade exceeds 130 percent." How can exports be more than GDP? - Deleted Cerevisae (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak is also one of the world's largest exporters of tropical hardwood timber, constituted 65 percent of total Malaysian log exports in 2000."The grammar has gone wrong here. - Changed the sentence Cerevisae (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Income inequality in Sarawak has not shown any significant changes from 1980 to 2009, with the Gini coefficient fluctuating between 0.4 and 0.5." This is not very helpful. How unequal are incomes compared with the rest of Malaysia and internationally? - added Malaysian Gini coefficient. Cerevisae (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, plans are for Samalaju to be developed as an industrial park" Ungrammatical and not sure what you are saying - sounds as if written before 2008. - Rewrote the sentence. Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sarawak capital of Kuching has been mentioned as one of the retirement destinations in Malaysia" This is vague and unencyclopedic. - Rewrote Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Computer usage was 45.9 percent in the same year" What does this mean? Percentage of people or households and is it of people owning a computer or with access to oen? - Deleted. Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in that the road condition is presently unsatisfactory, due to danger spots, sharp bends, blind spots, potholes, and erosion found along the road," This is ungrammatical. - Simplified the sentence. Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak has a considerable number of indigenous students enrolled in Chinese schools." You may explain what indigenous means in this context later in the article, but I think the term is better avoided at this point. - changed "indigenous" to "bumiputera". Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it has the lowest population density in Malaysia, which stands at 20 people per km2" I assume you mean 20 in Sarawak, but it is ambiguous. - added "in Sarawak" Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In the past, the Ibans recognised status hierarchy such as raja berani (the rich and the brave), orang mayuh (ordinary people), and ulun (slaves). However, during the Brooke era, Iban society was restructured into formal offices such as tuai rumah (headman), penghulu (regional chief), and temenggong (paramount chief)." This is not logical. The first part is different classes, but you contrast it with different names for leaders. - Deleted the second part of the sentence. Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They traditionally live in tall houses, but after adopting a Malay lifestyle, they dwell in villages." Another illogical contrast. - Deleted the second part. Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to make Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the head of Islam in Sarawak" This is ungrammatical and I am not sure what it means. If Yang di-Pertuan Agong is an office, it should be the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very full account, but excessively detailed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemongirl942
The lead could use a bit of trimming. For example

  • Following this, it became one of the founding members of the Federation of Malaysia (established on 16 September 1963) alongside North Borneo (now Sabah), Singapore (expelled in 1965), and the Federation of Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia or West Malaysia). could be changed to "Following this, it became one of the founding members of the Federation of Malaysia, established on 16 September 1963". (The rest of the information could be kept in the body of the article) - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarawak State Museum is the oldest museum in Borneo. The traditional musical instrument, sapeh, is well known in Sarawak. The Rainforest World Music Festival (RWMF) is one of the premier music events in Malaysia. The Gawai Dayak festival is only celebrated in Sarawak. This could do with a bit of adjustment. For example, considering due weight, the RWMF and the museum is better placed in the body. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help to add some information about the major ethnic groups in the lead. That seems to be an important part of Sarawak - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add more later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "nicknamed Bumi Kenyalang ("Land of the Hornbills")," seems to be better placed in the etymology section, rather than the lead. I wasn't able to find information about why it is called so. In general, epithets/nicknames are best covered in the etymology section. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

An in-depth piece. I'm not a native speaker, so please forgive me if what I question below is actually fine.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

And a bit more:

And still more:

  • around 39 districts -> why not the exact number? - Done
  • Division and District -> why capitals? - Done
  • For each district, ... for each village -> could benefit from a rewrite -Done
  • In 1888 Sarawak -> inconsistent across article, usually you have "In xxxx, " - Done
  • stating the issue was never been discussed during the meeting -> grammar + which meeting? do we need "during the meeting" at all? - Done
  • It contains large tracts of tropical rainforest with abundant plant and animal species. -> seems out of place. Better placed in the eco paragraph - Done
  • are the examples that are located -> sounds a bit odd to my foreign ears - Done
  • when does the the southwest monsoon occur? - Done (It occurs between March to October) Cerevisae (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "times. While the youngest " --> times, while the youngest Edwininlondon (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC) - Done Cerevisae (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis

[edit]

The language section doesn't make sense. It notes English being official then Malay being adopted, and then notes that English was re-adopted with no context as to why/when it was dropped. CMD (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC) - Done. Clarified with more sources. Cerevisae (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 70kB of prose, quite above our 50kB guideline. There are also a few single-paragraph subsections, which are discouraged by WP:MOSBODY. In particular the ethnic group section could be tweaked. I am unsure if giving each of these groups their own section is warranted within the summarystyle of this article. At any rate, the pictures don't currently match up well. Perhaps they could be organised in a 2x3 grid or similar. CMD (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CMD, you are welcome to remove the details that are deemed unnecessary away from the article. Thanks. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figure I may as well put some effort in given I would like this to be an FA as well.
There are some sourcing presentation issues. Haven't looked through them all thoroughly, but I noticed when looking at the self-government sources that none have page numbers. They don't seem to have a google books preview, so I can't go inside them myself. CMD (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

Hi, we've had a great deal of commentary here but no clear support for promotion to FA after six weeks, so I'm going to archive this and ask that the nominator take care of any outstanding comments outside the pressure of the FAC process and consider giving this a fresh nomination here after the usual two-week break following an archived nom. Prior to that it may be worthwhile re-listing at Peer Review, pinging the reviewers above, given the last PR garnered no commentary -- that would be one way to try and nail down any issues before re-nominating at FAC (you can also ping prior reviewers with neurally worded notices when you re-nom here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2016 [2].

House of Music

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1996 studio album by the R&B band Tony! Toni! Toné!. It was their fourth and last album, a platinum seller, and widespread critical success, deemed by some critics as their best work, an influence on 1990s neo soul, and a masterpiece of '90s R&B. Dan56 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jennica

[edit]
@Dan56: - Second sentence: "During the band's heyday, it was composed of Dwayne Wiggins on lead vocals and guitar"... --Jennica✿ talk / contribs 00:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jennica:, that's the article on the band; this article being nominated is on their fourth album. Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

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

Comments from TheAmazingPeanuts

[edit]

I'm not the best editor on Wikipedia, but I can tell the article has been edited well. - TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

Sorry Dan but despite this being open almost two months and listed at FAC Urgents for a while, we haven't seen the depth of commentary necessary to establish consensus to promote; I wonder if a PR with requests to appropriate projects and music editors might get a groundswell of interest that could carry over to a re-nom at FAC in a couple of weeks or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 [3].

David Cameron

[edit]
Nominator(s): P 53

This article is about former British Prime Minister David Cameron. Mr Cameron served as the Prime Minister from 2010 to 2016. He resigned because he campaigned for Britain to remain in the UK, but the voters decided to leave. 2 months later, he resigned as Member of Parliament for Witney and campaigned for Robert Courts who is incumbent MP for Witney. Before Mr Cameron became the Prime Minister, he was Leader of the Opposition for 5 years until he won the general election in 2010.

However, even he won the election, the Conservatives didn't have enough seats, so he constituted a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats until 2015 when the Conservatives won enough seats to constitute their own government. In 2016, after the referendum, Cameron resigned and Theresa May became his successor. P 53 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a few problems with this article. The "Styles" section is unsourced and unnecessary. The "Ancestry" section is unsourced. The political commentary section seems like a list of all the content people can find on Cameron, rather than just what is really notable. The "Comments on other parties and politicians" section is a strange one - why are these comments collected in one place rather than being in chronological order? I think the opinion polling section should feature just Cameron's personal opinion polling rather than his party's as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close -- sorry, apart from the points raised by Absolutelypuremilk, FAC instructions require nominators to be familiar with the article under review so they can deal adequately with comments, or to have consulted with major contributors to the article prior to the nom; the nominator appears to be a brand-new account that doesn't meet either requirement, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2016 [4].

CMLL World Welterweight Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  21:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently failed as a FAC due to no input, not actual content issues, so I'm hoping that the second time is the charm for this article. This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, not just a list of champions but an article on the history of the championship, rules etc. This follows the format of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship and CMLL World Middleweight Championship articles which were recently promoted to FA. I have taken all input from those FACs, plus various GANs, FLCs and FACs I've done on Mexican wrestling championships to hopefully produce a high-quality article worthy of the Feature Article status. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  21:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry, I know it's deja vu but perhaps third time lucky if we close this one and you put a re-nom at the top of the queue; we'll waive the usual two-week wait owing to the minimal commentary here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2016 [5].

Chhinnamasta

[edit]
Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chhinnamasta is a Hindu self-decapitated goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound. While she enjoyed a long peer review, she went unnoticed on her first trip to FAC a month ago, expect a detailed image review by the lone FAC reviewer. She returns to claim her position in the FA pantheon. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be a little concerned about some of the prose in this article. For instance, looking at the lede we have statements such as "Chhinnamasta (Sanskrit: छिन्नमस्ता, Chinnamastā, "She whose head is severed"), often spelled Chinnamasta, and also called Chhinnamastika and Prachanda Chandika, is one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother. Chhinnamasta can be easily identified by her unusual iconography." I'm concerned that it comes across as a little literalist in the way that said beliefs are presented, and is not particularly clear for readers not already familiar with Asian religion. Moreover, wording like "can be easily identified" doesn't (for me) feel particularly encyclopaedic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Obviously only "easily" by someone familiar with the iconography, but there is nothing un-encyclopaedic about it (which isn't to say a rephrase might not be appropriate). Writing about Hindu theology is like advanced maths - there is no real way to make it simple and clear for newcomers. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Midnightblueowl and Johnbod. Sorry for the delay in the replies, as I was out of town. References use two ways of defining Chhinnamasta:
  1. as "one of the Mahavidyas", a "Tantric goddess"
  2. iconography: the "self-decapitated goddess"/ the "headless goddess"
The former is followed here; while the iconography is explained in the same para. Reworded the lede to explain Tantra too. I have removed "Chhinnamasta can be easily identified by her unusual iconography"; however like the elephant-headed god Ganesha, the headless goddess is easily recognizable, once you know her iconography of being headless. The article needs to balance between jargon and over-simplification to be encyclopedic. With the help of the GOCE member User:Corinne, I have tried my best to do the same. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the intricacy of an article like this one (I edit many similarly complex articles myself) but I do think that we can reach a better balance between jargon and accessibility. For instance, we should start the article with "Chhinnamasta (Sanskrit: छिन्नमस्ता, Chinnamastā, "She whose head is severed"), often spelled Chinnamasta, and also called Chhinnamastika and Prachanda Chandika, is a goddess in Hinduism and Buddhism." Straight away, that is a lot clearer and more inviting to those unfamiliar with Hindu theology. We can then go on to say something like "Within Hindu theology, she is regarded as one of the Mahavidyas, ten goddesses from the esoteric tradition of Tantra, and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother goddess." I certainly don't want to lose the technical jargon, but at the same time it has to be made as accessible as possible. At present I don't think that the article does this. It is too technical, too full of shibboleths. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, Midnightblueowl. This article is only about Chhinnamasta, the Hindu Mahavidya. No article existed about the Buddhist goddess, primarily known as Chinnamunda. I have temporarily created a 1-liner stub to avoid confusion. It would be helpful if you list a few more examples of shibboleths so that the article can improved further. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: For some reason, FACs for this article don't seem to be getting off the ground. I don't think remaining open is doing it any favours, so I am going to archive this. However, you can re-nominate without the usual 2 week waiting period, and maybe ping those who have been involved in previous FACs or PRs to try and drum up some attention. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2016 [6].

Acne vulgaris

[edit]
Nominator(s): TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the very common chronic skin condition acne vulgaris. I believe the article should be featured as a significant amount of effort has been poured into this article (by multiple editors) to ensure that its discussion of acne vulgaris is comprehensive, accurate, and accessible to a general readership. This is a very important topic since the condition is nearly ubiquitous (one of the most common skin conditions worldwide). This article aims to provide all readers (general and professional) with an informative summary of the underpinnings of this condition and to address any questions those affected by the condition might have (e.g., safety and efficacy of various treatment modalities). I believe this article to be an example of Wikipedia's highest quality work but am certainly open to constructive feedback to further refine it to reach FA, if applicable. Thank you to those reviewing the article for your consideration. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seppi333

[edit]
Criterion 3
[edit]

I'm going to start with an image review (criterion 3).

  1. All of the images except one have an acceptable reported copyright status; however, one image – COMMONS:File:Akne-jugend.jpg – is tagged as public domain but doesn't indicate the original source. This concerns me. I'm inclined to believe that it is PD, but I can't determine this for sure using a google image search or tineye search of the original image to find its original source. It's probably okay to use the current image, but I don't think it would too difficult to find a higher quality image for the infobox which has both an acceptable copyright status and clear attribution to its original source.
  2. Per MOS:IM, all images should include alt text; hence, featured articles need to include WP:ALT text in order to satisfy criterion 2. I've added empty alt parameters to 4 images (1 in the infobox, 3 to existing image syntax). These images need to have appropriate alt text added to them. I added alt parameters with appropriate alt text to the 2 images in the gallery to serve as an example of what to write in the 4 other image alt parameters.
  3. I made minor tweaks to the existing captions (removed periods in captions containing a sentence fragment; fixed grammar in 1 caption) to make them conform to MOS:CAPTION. No further changes to the captions are necessary IMO – the current captions seem fine.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seppi, thanks for getting the FA review started. For my edification, what's the concern about the image being public domain? I'm not well-versed in copyright policy so I'm not sure why that would be a potential issue. With that said, I'll look through Wikimedia to see if I can find a different high-quality image that has a more suitable copyright status so it's not an issue. I saw you added those alt parameters already so thank you for doing that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this [7] would work better since its copyright status is CC by SA 4.0. Yes? Also, I noticed the hair follicle anatomy picture is also labeled as public domain. Is that in need of replacement as well? If so, this looks like it might be an improvement anyway [8]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerDurden8823: Public domain is an acceptable copyright status. The issue is that the image which I've pointed out is not attributed to any source, so it's difficult to verify that it is indeed in the public domain. The picture you proposed as an alternative seems fine to me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be content with passing this image review if only issue #2 is addressed, but it'd be an improvement if you could also find a better alternative image as described above in issue #1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seppi333:, I have filled in the alt text parameters and added the CC by SA pictures. I also noticed the featured article Alzheimer's disease has some pictures without alt text captions (perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed in the future). Please let me know if you see anything else that needs revision or if any additional changes are needed. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed to my satisfaction. I'll do a review of the article's MOS compliance within the next week or so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seppi333:, are you still going to review the article's MOS compliance? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I still intend to. I've been unexpectedly busy lately due to my off-wiki responsibilities, so I never really got around to doing it when I originally intended. I will do that review soon though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just checking. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 2
[edit]

I intend to take on a review of the article's compliance with the WP:Manual of Style (criterion 2) sometime this next week soonish.

More to come. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment from Jim

[edit]

We don't normally have references in the lead since it's just summarising the presumably fully referenced text in the body. Can you clarify why you have deviated from this practice? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen featured articles with references in the lead that are well-accepted (e.g., Parkinson's disease, rhabdomyolysis, and Alzheimer's disease to name a few) and didn't see that it excludes it from being an FAC here [9]. I don't see mention of that as a criterion in the featured article criteria discussing the lead or citations. I hope that explains but I'm not married to the idea if that's a widely held view that's going to prevent it from progressing to FA). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For medical pages we do normally have references in the lead and this practice is supported by WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Opabinia

[edit]
  • In the lead, you gloss "sebum" as pipelinked "oil from the skin", and the next usage of "sebum" occurs without explanation. Either the lead should have a parenthetical (sebum), or the next use should have a parenthetical (oil...).
Hi @Opabinia regalis:, I'm assuming when you say pipelinked that you mean wikilinked, right? Regarding the sebum issue, the signs and symptoms section does say seborrhea (I don't think that's much of a jump from sebum given the common root of the word) and defines that as oily secretions from the skin). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean wikilinked specifically with a pipe ;) Which is used a lot here as a way to link to articles whose titles are technical or unfamiliar, e.g. [[sebum|oil from the skin]]. In this specific case, I think there's a question of who the article anticipates as readers. The population who fails to understand things like "oral" is not also capable of connecting "sebum" with the unfamiliar "seborrhea". Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I didn't realize there was a term for that. My goal is for the article to be for a general audience (lay and professional alike). Wikipedia should (and does) strive for an 8th grade reading level so I am a firm proponent of simpler is better. I personally have no objection to use of the term "oral" over "by mouth" and think both would be relatively easy to understand. As I said before, other editors have thought otherwise. @Doc James:, care to weigh in? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO we should use simple language in the lead. Than in the body more complicated language can be used with the simple term in brackets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Writing parts of this particular article at an eighth-grade level makes sense given how many affected people are actual eighth-graders ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't get much out of piping "cleanliness" to "hygiene", which is not a complex word, and is more specific.
I am unclear what the proposed change is here-are you advocating for a switch in the word cleanliness to hygiene or eliminating the wikilink? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting using and linking the word "hygiene", rather than linking through a term that was presumably chosen to be "simpler". Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm unsure about this one. It seems somewhat subjective to me. I could conceive of a general audience being more familiar with the word clean (or variations of it) than hygiene but it seems like a minor point to me. I don't feel too strongly about this one. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't mention hormones, but the article goes into some detail on the topic - seems like it warrants a mention.
Oral contraceptives are mentioned in the lead and are hormonal. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As above, who's the audience? If "teenager", they can't be counted on to know that contraceptives are hormones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the word hormonal for clarity and clarified that androgens are hormones. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's a thing in medical articles, but every time I see this trend toward writing "by mouth" instead of "orally" it makes me want to throw up a little. (You know, by mouth ;) Especially in contrast to "topical", which is much less "simple" and understandable! The phrase "by mouth formulations" is awful.
This is a style thing and medical editors have disagreed on this one. Some editors believe topical/oral is simple enough whereas others do not and believe terminology such as applied to skin or by mouth is simpler/more accessible even though I agree with you that it's not the optimal prose. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest at least rewording "by mouth formulations", which is both painful English and actually harder to understand. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. I agree that the term "oral" should be sufficiently simple for the vast majority of readers at an eighth grade reading level as is the term "topical" and sounds less awkward. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're on the subject of simplicity, an appositive explanation for "comedones" in the classification section would be a good idea.
That's a good suggestion. I've addressed this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the signs and symptoms section, you write "The appearance of acne varies with skin color." - this seems to warrant more coverage, or illustrative images if we have them. IIRC poor coverage of the appearance of dermatological conditions on dark skin is a common failing in medical and health education.
This is actually addressed in the photos if you look at them carefully. The images in the signs & symptoms section show a fair-skinned white woman with severe nodular acne whereas the introductory photo shows a darker skinned male and shows some variation there. I'll take a look and see if we have additional images for better illustration of this point but we must be cautious not to overload the article with too many photos. I do think there is such a thing as too much. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the infobox picture is very good. The statement that appearance varies by skin color, without either describing or illustrating what the variation consists of, seems incomplete. Since this is a sort of a summary/introduction to the subsections that follow, adding that hyperpigmentation is an example of this variation (or is it the primary difference?) would help. On the images below, it just seems like odd positioning to have a light-skinned person immediately following the section about hyperpigmentation and its more frequent occurrence in darker-skinned people. Ideally an image in that section would show hyperpigmentation on dark skin, though I didn't come up with any compatibly licensed ones on a quick search. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hyperpigmentation is definitely the primary difference but there are no illustrative images for me to add to the article (I checked today). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I quickly looked through the usual suspects in open-source publishing and all I found was Figure 12 of this paper describing skin diseases in Cameroon - unfortunately the nevus is much more visually prominent than the acne. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and it's not the best example of PIH either. I wouldn't recommend using that particular picture. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: and @Doc James:, what do you think about a subsection in the treatment section devoted to PIH? Yay or nay? Do you think this would be better suited to the PIH main page (which appears rather undeveloped)? Mention is given to various treatments in the different subsections regarding whether they can help with PIH but I'm just wondering if a subsection dedicated solely to it in the treatment section might be of benefit to readers instead. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we have here is long enough and further details belong on the subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next subsection, "The scar is created by an abnormal form of healing..." - this has the sound of oversimplified prose trying to avoid a technical term, but then I click through to the source and find that it discusses "an altered wound healing response" without much more explanation. This isn't my area of expertise at all, but this sounds like either a) there's a sentence's worth of explanation from another source that could be offered here, or b) if not, the existing text of that paragraph could use a bit of copyediting.
In truth, there aren't all that many secondary sources discussing the pathogenesis of acne scar formation. I will see if I can find one that explains in a bit more depth. In terms of copyediting, what changes are you suggesting and why does that phrase seem oversimplified to you? It is important that we do keep the article accessible to a general audience too. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a circumlocution for a technical term judged too "complex", but it turns out it apparently isn't. Even something like "The scar is the result of abnormal wound healing..." sounds better to me, but this is subjective. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've simplified the wording a bit. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there's only two images in the "pigmentation" section, maybe use normal images (or {{multiple image}}) instead of the gallery? (Also would be great to have an image of a darker-skinned person here, since those with darker skin are more susceptible to hyperpigmentation.)
What does the t|multiple image command do? I tried it and it didn't show the images at all. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a template for formatting images. Sounds like a syntax problem if nothing shows up? It would allow the images to float inline with the text at normal thumbnail size, rather than interrupting the text with small images as in the gallery format. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It probably was a syntax problem as it just showed the brackets, etc but didn't actually change the photos as it did for you when I tried it. I think it looks fine the way you've changed it now that it's to the side. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subheads in the "cause" section aren't parallel: "genetic", "hormones", "infectious", etc. (Also "causes" is more natural, I would think?)
Causes is fine, but can you clarify what you mean about the subsections not being "parallel"? I'm not sure what you mean. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean parallelism (grammar); they're not all the same part of speech: some are nouns (hormones) and some are adjectives (genetic, infectious). Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, they're all nouns now. That's been addressed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The genetics section could use a copyedit; "The genetics of acne susceptibility is likely polygenic" is awkwardly phrased, and is the TNF SNP in the last sentence in a member of the family other than TNF-alpha? If not, then it reads weirdly to have TNF-alpha mentioned with the abbreviation, and the spelled out in the next sentence.
Do you have a specific proposal? How is that phrasing awkward? I've seen many articles use wording just like that before without an issue. And no, the TNF SNP is regarding to specific mutations in the TNF gene family. The abbreviation part is fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The genetics...is polygenic" is awkward wording. I'm no copyeditor, but just "Acne susceptibility is likely polygenic" or an explanatory "...is likely an effect of multiple genes sounds better. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the suggestion and have incorporated it into the article. The simplification of polygenic was a particularly nice touch and definitely necessary. I had overlooked that as jargon on previous reads. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Acne that first develops between the ages of 21 and 25 is uncommon" seems oddly placed in the "hormones" section. Obviously the connection is puberty, but it's a distraction from the flow of discussion about the biology of hormones. Maybe move this to the epidemiology section?
That sounds reasonable to me. This has been addressed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the "hormones" section says people with CAIS don't get acne. Interesting, I didn't know that! Then the second paragraph has that "conversely" sentence that pipelinks androgen insensitivity syndrome and says it's rare, citing a different source. The pipe text obscures the interestingness of these observations, and also makes it hard to parse whether it's just "rare" in general insensitivity but never found in complete insensitivity, or whether two different studies found different results.
In truth, I hadn't noticed that subtle distinction on previous readings between CAIS and just AIS. Before looking into it further, my guess would be that acne does not occur at all with CAIS and rarely in AIS due to AIS not being a complete insensitivity, but I will look into it further to clarify. I'm not sure what you mean about the "pipe text obscuring the interestingness of these observations". What is the proposal for the wikilinks exactly? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was my guess also. I mean that you've written [[androgen insensitivity|insensitive to the effects of androgen]], obscuring the term "androgen insensitivity", which makes it less likely anyone will notice the pattern. I don't have a proposal for the wikilinks because I don't know whether there really is a direct relationship between degree of androgen insensitivity and lack of acne (as seems plausible). Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I looked back at the 2014 AJCD review cited about the rarity of acne in those with androgen deficiency or complete insensitivity and it says the following: "those with androgen deficiency or insensitivity do not tend to develop acne [55–57]." Overall, it's slightly nebulous and doesn't explicitly state those with CAIS never develop acne and those with incomplete AIS can develop acne but rarely. This reference [10] states men with androgen insensitivity do not develop acne (but didn't say whether this encompasses all affected by AIS or if partial vs complete makes a difference). Since the wording from the 2014 AJCD review leaves a bit of wiggle room (do not TEND to develop acne), this suggests that it is possible but highly unlikely and rare (which makes sense since androgens are key to acne but not the whole story) so I think the current wording is appropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Anabolic steroids are commonly found in over-the-counter bodybuilding supplements." sounds like they're supposed to be there, but clicking through to the source reveals these are unlabeled additives.
I'm not sure why it would come off like they're supposed to be there but I can add a clarifying statement that they're inappropriate additives/contaminants, etc. if that's unclear. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because you already know that ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I'll think of a way to clarify that bit. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. I think the new sentence with an additional secondary source should be clearer. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "infectious" section doesn't mention whether P. acnes is also a normal component of skin flora (I think so?)
It depends on the type of P. acnes. As it says in the article, "There are specific sub-strains of P. acnes associated with normal skin and others with moderate or severe inflammatory acne."TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right, I missed that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, MEDMOS and all, so just thinking out loud, but to me it seems strange to go through many paragraphs of possible causes before explaining the pathophysiology that would allow a reader to put those causes in biological context.
That's MEDMOS for you. Do you have a specific suggestions here? Are you suggesting putting the pathophys section before the causes section? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Offering the idea for consideration. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this particular suggestion (and since it's my first FAC), I would elect to ask for someone a bit more familiar with MEDMOS than myself. @Doc James:, is it ever acceptable to deviate from WP:MEDMOS structure in an FA if it enhances the flow of the article? In this case, the proposal would be to put the pathophysiology section immediately before delving into the various proposed causes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a big fan of following a fairly set ordering of sections. This has the benefit of those who use us lots and those who edit lots to always know where to find specific information. Causes gives an overview and pathophysiology gives more indepth details for those who want it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping ahead a bit, the "retinoids" section could also benefit from copyediting. The first two sentences are a bit jarring: a list of retinoids, then "Like isotretinoin, these retinoids are related to vitamin A..." - why separate isotretinoin out here, before we've been introduced to the fact that it's administered differently? And while we're at it, in the paragraph about isotretinoin side effects, surely its teratogenicity is worth a mention here, not just way down below in the pregnancy section?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say a sentence is jarring. Did you mean it's a bit too abrupt or choppy there? The first sentence in the retinoids paragraph is not a list but discusses how retinoids work to address different facets of acne pathophysiology. Did you mean in the second paragraph? I feel it's better to keep the teratogenicity discussion to the pregnancy section to avoid repetition and keep the article coherent. If multiple editors feel the article would benefit from repeated mention, then we can certainly consider an additional mention in the retinoid section though this would then open up the entire medication section to discussing the teratogenicity (or lack thereof) of each agent in each paragraph (slippery slope and leads to a lot of repetition). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph, yes, sorry. All retinoids are related to vitamin A, so why "Like isotretinoin,..."? Abrupt, yes, but mostly it's just unclear why isotretinoin is being singled out here; a "like X, Y..." construction would usually signal that X has already been discussed, but here it's only covered a paragraph later. (Maybe it used to be the other way around?) More importantly, I really do think teratogenicity has to be mentioned briefly here along with all the other effects of the drug rather than shuffled off to "pregnancy" - for one thing, the people reading this section can't be relied on to read the whole article, and people who believe they're not going to get pregnant aren't going to read the pregnancy section, even if their belief is inaccurate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply a remnant of how it was originally written and just never removed or modified. Isotretinoin does stand on its own in a way as its the sole oral retinoid used in most places and is probably the most effective/most teratogenic but I can try to come up with a smoother transition. As for the teratogenicity, that's fair since those who take isotretinoin have to sign the pledge to use contraception, etc. so I suppose it does deserve some mention there. I've added two sentences there briefly discussing the matter. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the copyediting request and added a bit more in the initial paragraphs of the management section for broad strokes. Let me know if the flow is better or if you identify any other areas in need of further refinement. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By mouth" again. If they're reading straight through, people have by this point followed along through "Activation of TLR2 and TLR4 by P. acnes leads to increased secretion of IL-8, TNF-α, and IL-1α." and "squalene oxidation leads to increased activity of the 5-lipoxygenase enzyme responsible for conversion of arachidonic acid to leukotriene B4" but you're dodging the word "orally"?
Yes, I know, this was not solely my choice. See above about debate amongst medical editors regarding best terminology to use. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't figure out how you chose the order in which the treatments are listed. Diet first, sure. Benzoyl peroxide next, sure - that's very common and OTC. But why the retinoids next, with azelaic acid (nope, not alphabetical) and salicylic acid (nope, not "OTC first") only after that? Why hormones in the middle, when that mostly applies to women?
Retinoids are listed next because they are first-line just like benzoyl peroxide and among the most effective. Antibiotics are then listed because they are also very commonly used and effective and then hormonal agents (used a bit less but still quite effective). Azelaic and salicylic acids are similar in their mechanisms of actions and are both regarded as somewhat less effective but well-tolerated therapies and are generally considered 2nd line, which is why they are lower. Then, the section dives into more specialized topics (e.g., combination therapy, procedures, pregnancy considerations, etc). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe specifically list in the intro paragraph to that section which are "first" or "second-line"? I'm surprised that salicylic acid would be classified that way, because surely just about everybody tries salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide before seeing a doctor, since they're cheap and widely available. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salicylic acid is known to be less effective than first-line therapies (e.g., BPO or retinoids) but BPO and salicylic acid are available OTC (whereas retinoids generally are not) so access is a big part of why use of salicylic acid is so prevalent. As for saying what's first-line in the introductory paragraph of the treatment section, I think that's fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence in the early part of the management section clarifying which therapies are regarded as first-line. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a big section on treating acne in pregnant women, and the teratogenic effects of some otherwise common treatments, but it seems like somewhere else in the article (causes?) should mention that acne is common in normal pregnancies and maybe briefly explain the likely mechanisms.
The mechanisms aren't different as far as I know. The pregnancy section is needed as a separate section because there are additional considerations when discussing treatment (e.g., teratogenicity of various treatments). Not sure if any of the reviews discuss the epidemiology of acne in pregnancy but I'll take a second look. If so, this might be a reasonable addition to the epidemiology section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean explain the fact that normal hormonal changes due to pregnancy can affect acne, which I might have missed but don't see anywhere. Pregnant adult women who suddenly have pizzafaces are a likely audience for this article, because everybody knows teenagers get zits, but it's often unexpected as an effect of pregnancy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I recall seeing any mention in those reviews that pregnancy is expected to typically worsen acne but I'll recheck. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be interesting either way, because this is definitely a meme. You could try this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I looked into this further and one of the recent reviews from Clinics in Obstetrics & Gynecology said pregnancy is not reliably associated with acne severity. This has been incorporated into the article so readers will now have some context about that particular aspect of the intersection between acne and pregnancy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I read "Numerous natural products have been investigated..." I first think natural products, not woo ;) Seems better to say "alternative treatments" or something, rather than play into the whole "medicine isn't natural!" rhetorical framing.
IMO, this part is okay as it stands. The natural products are actually discussed (e.g., bee venom & tea tree oil) but other alternative/not "nature-derived/natural" treatments are discussed later (i.e., cupping therapy) so there is a clear distinction between the two. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhhh, I wouldn't say "zomg, can't be a featured article if you say 'natural product'!" but it seems pointless to deliberately use an ambiguous term here, especially since some of the medical treatments are indeed "natural products" in the chemistry-term-of-art sense. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not understanding your point. Sure, the term "natural product" is ambiguous but the term "alternative therapy" is no more specific. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are the natural products tetracyclines or tea tree oil? ;) Maybe "complementary medicine", with link, since that's what the source used in its title. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I missing the connection between Cleopatra and acne, or is this a kind of flowery way of saying "documented as early as 60BCE-ish"? Probably wise to give a date.
I don't think the referenced articles provided specific dates but I'll recheck. Yes, this is simply a stylistic choice saying that acne has been long documented. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going with the date of Cleopatra's death ;) Another "who's the audience" issue - do the people who don't understand "orally" or "sebum" know when Cleopatra ruled? Probably not. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to adding that (though I thought contextually it was pretty clear that it was a LONG time ago since the next sentence talks about sixth century Greeks). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have an ongoing and admittedly idiosyncratic campaign to get people to stop describing major scientific contributions as "seminal".
You'll have to elaborate on why this word is problematic because myriad scientific and encyclopedic articles use it so the issue with it is unclear to me at this time. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no doubt it's widely used. It also subtly perpetuates the notion that ideas, specifically, have fathers - it originates with the notion that Big Ideas come from Great Men. Whenever I feel tempted to use it in my own writing I try to sneakily replace it with some kind of egg/pregnancy/nurture metaphor ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's the masculinity of the language that you find irksome, I see. I think alternative terms here would likely sacrifice some terseness, don't you think? The word may have male semantic roots but I think the word is fine here and won't have any negative effects on women. If you have a compelling argument that it might, let me know, but I don't think male semantic roots require avoidance of a given word (as long as it's used appropriately). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to rephrase "modernly accepted idea".
Why? This is accurate. It is widely accepted by dermatologists that acne's pathophysiology is explained by a cascade of related events. And what are you suggesting as a rephrasing of this phrase? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is an ENGVAR thing? I'm a native speaker of American English and "modernly" sounds wrong. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm a native speaker of American English as well and it sounds fine to me. What term would you propose be used in its place? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds weird the way "appealable" or "usuality" sound weird - perfectly understandable, but kinda "off" in formal writing. I'd probably just shorten that sentence to "this led to the current understanding that..." or similar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's a style thing. I typically think of the term "modernly" as being acceptable in formal writing depending on the circumstances but I'm not overly attached to it. For the sake of simplicity, I've omitted it as you suggested since I don't feel strongly about this minor matter. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tangent: US population: ~319 million. UK population: ~64 million. So the US has 5x the population but only 1.4x the doctor visits for acne? That whole socialized medicine thing must be good stuff ;)
Indeed, cultural differences/norms may also play a role in the difference in willingness to pursue medical attention about it. Many teens suffer in silence or stick to going to the pharmacy to self-treat (and often have poor results). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was an offhand tangent, but that's actually an interesting question. Damn near everybody had zits as a teenager, and skin care is a pretty big industry, but relatively few people go beyond the drugstore for treatment. Is there data on the rate at which people seek actual medical care, or whether that has changed over time? "Number of doctor visits" is a presumably easy to measure but sort of unintuitive statistic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think some epidemiology articles do mention number of doctor visits though I can't recall if they stratify by nation. It would be important to know between the US and UK if the proportion of those most affected by acne (e.g., those in their teenage years and twenties) is significantly different. If not, this might explain why the numbers are not all that dissimilar (though this is merely speculation on my part). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised the "society and culture" section is so brief, considering that apparently 90% of Western teenagers have had noticeable acne and obsessing about zits seems like a common teenager theme. I wonder if there's more to be written here, especially from more sociology- or literature-oriented rather than medical sources.
If you have some example sources to propose, let me know. There is sparse mention in the medical literature and is an area in need of further examination. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've already cited medical sources that report on the effects of acne on self-image and psychological well-being, but body image and beauty ideals, especially in young people, are also studied in other disciplines, and I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't sources in women's studies or media studies that cover acne. That said, this is waaaay outside my field, so I can't really suggest anything in particular; I'm just suggesting that it's worth looking specifically for those types of sources. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that this is an article about a medical condition and most sources that will discuss the sociocultural aspects will be from media and such sources are often considered unreliable for use in medical articles. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting using them for medical claims. Imagine trying to write leprosy without any sources from history or literature? I don't know if there are any relevant sources, but the point of those sourcing guidelines is to keep bullshit medical claims from infecting articles, not to keep entire academic fields out. Pinging WhatamIdoing because she often has good things to say on these issues when they come up at WT:MED. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS says, "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article". Something like https://books.google.com/books?id=S-rNTj6IlVAC might be usable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which - it wasn't till I got to that last bullet that I realized the word zit doesn't occur in this article! In fact there's another, much less developed but somewhat redundant article at pimple. I can't help thinking these should be merged, but if you'd understandably rather not, then it would still be good to copy or summarize some of this material into the pimple article, because pimples/zits/etc will be common search terms.
I think it's better to leave them separate and have a wikilink to the term pimple instead. I do see how slang terms such as zit(s) will be a frequently searched term but hopefully this article will educate a lot of readers. One addition I am looking into is a good place to address some other myths or misconceptions about acne (e.g., the effects of squeezing pimples on acne severity/persistence-believe it or not, PubMed searches turned up nothing). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These pageview stats are interesting - acne vulgaris gets the most views, but pimple - which is, by comparison, a pretty bad article - still gets about 25% of the traffic on the subject. I think you have a good idea to add more on misconceptions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me that the pimple page gets a fair amount of views. My guess is acne probably gets the most and fortunately that redirects here. If the pimple page is in need of work, then we should do that too but I don't think we need to merge. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no support for promotion after several weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. —Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2016 [11].

Courtney Love

[edit]
Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about musician/actress Courtney Love. Article previously received support but was unfortunately not promoted. It has been a project-in-work for years now, and has reached a level of comprehensiveness and attention to prose that I think warrants FA status. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've skimmed a bit and I'll start a close review soon. I want to make sure it's polished in as many respects as possible and there are no minor issues. That said, on its face this is likely among the very best rock biographies on Wikipedia and I'm sure it should and will pass. One quick point now that I make on any FA: you should preemptively archive all the links in the references with the |archiveurl=, |archivedate= and |deadurl=no parameters, with links from archive.org (or archive.is if archive.org doesn't work, sometimes it backs up things that archive.org won't). This will save time and possibly information if any links die in the future; basically all sources should be archived unless it's impossible due to robots.txt or being a pdf. ——BLZ · talk 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I don't think editors should be wasting their limited time proactively adding archive links. That's an onerous and low value activity that should be performed by an automated script. It should not be tasked for FA candidates. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a script for it? I think you are right that it's tedious, but all the same I don't think it's low value at all, it's a quite valuable safety measure for references. Featured articles are subject just like any others to the erosion of years and years of bizarre, senseless edits that degrade the quality of the article and may not all get caught. Leaving archived links assures the continued stability and reliability of an article. You would be surprised how often archive.org doesn't have a page you need on record, and you don't want to wait to check until it's too late. Ideally, featured articles should be at a level that don't need a review (other than adding new info) or delisting in 5, 10, 20, 30 years, and to me archiving links is a solution to one of the most foreseeable and easily resolved potential problems. —BLZ · talk 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've reviewed this article a couple of times now, and it still seems to be in good condition. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am concerned about the use of "Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon -- The Case Against Celebrity" by Andrew Breitbart and Mark C. Ebner. This seems like over citing to use a book from these authors to make a claim of fact and unnecessary as there are two additional reliable sources. Mostly I am concerned with the whole mention as written per WP:BLPCRIME. The subject in question is not well known and the article on him was deleted as not meeting Wikipedia standards for notability and this particular piece was center in that discussion as well I believe. If the content remains, I believe it needs a good edit to comply with our policies on Biographies of Living Persons. At the very least...there is no balance, no mention of her father's reaction to the claim made by Courtney's mother.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claim made by Courtney's mother against her father when she took custody.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Miller, I was able to address this with a source from the SF Gate in which it states that her father denied her mother's claims of this. I believe that addresses your concern of balance, but if you have additional concerns, do say so. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel strongly that the Breitbart source is not reliable enough for inclusion and that it's use is over referencing the point.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Miller, I removed the Breitbart and Ebner source for the LSD accusation, but left the other two. However, I left the Breitbart & Ebner citations for other, less contentious portions of the biography.--Drown Soda (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not supporting as long as that unreliable source is used in the article. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, you say?! I guess I've been doing this wrong all along then! You didn't exactly distinguish whether or not you took issue with the source as a whole or just as it pertained to the one accusation made by her mother, so maybe make yourself more clear. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "which established her as a viable mainstream actress": suggest cutting "viable", which is redundant with "established".
  • "Between 2014 and 2015, she debuted two solo singles": suggest "released"; "debuted" is a bit of an industry term.
  • I wouldn't oppose for this, but I don't think you need to mention Fairbanks; it's a relationship by marriage two generations earlier that she was never aware of. This is a fairly long article, and it wouldn't hurt to cut a minor detail like this.
  • "According to sources, Love's mother, who was studying to be a psychologist, had her in therapy by the age of two": I don't think "According to sources" is good enough here. If it's considered definitely true by a reliable source, and not contradicted anywhere, just cut the phrase; if it's dubious in some way, give a little more explanation, at a minimum via a footnote.
  • "Love's mother then sent her back to the United States": can we give the year?
  • "She supported herself by working illegally as a stripper, adopting the last name "Love" to conceal her identity, which she came to use thereafter": needs to be rephrased; she didn't come to use her identity thereafter.
  • "The group recorded material with Love as a vocalist, but was subsequently kicked out of the band": presumably "but she was"?
  • "so Bjelland would transpose Love's musical ideas on guitar for her": shouldn't this be "transcribe...for guitar"? "Transpose" usually refers to just changing key, doesn't it?
  • "and consequently adopted a more polished public image": I'm not sure what "adopted" means here; I'm guessing the intended meaning is that her image was seen by others as becoming more polished, but "adopted" implies this was a deliberate choice on her part, which seems implausible.
  • "she also had endeavors in fashion": a little clumsy; suggest just cutting this. Perhaps finish the paragraph with "...consequently acquired a more polished public image, including modeling work for Versace, and appearances in Vogue Italia".
  • "but was forced by the label to re-record the entire album in the summer of 2003": can we say why?
  • "started recording what was going to be her second solo album": suggest "what would become her second solo album".
  • You don't need to identify Corgan as a member of Smashing Pumpkins the second time he's mentioned.
  • Details of her rehab in 2006 aren't given in the music section; I understand why one might separate the two narratives, but it reads oddly, particularly since the music section comes first. We get "during her time in rehab in 2005" with no details till much later in the article.
  • I'm not sure if "2012–present: Career expansion" is the best section title, per WP:DATED; perhaps "2016" instead of "present" would be wiser.
  • "Love's contribution to the album was critically acclaimed": this seems a bit strong, given that you only cite two reviews, one of which you subsequently quote. I'd just cut this.
  • "She also often played a guitar made by Mercury, an obscure company that manufactured custom guitars, which she purchased in 1992": I take it she didn't purchase the company, so this needs rewording.
  • I haven't looked at source reliability, but I did notice that this source appears to be a blog. What makes it a reliable source for Wikipedia?
  • "Love's Kinderwhore style of dress was inspire Chrissy Amphlett of the Divinyls": looks like this is missing a word, or a letter?
  • "She has admittedly struggled with substance abuse problems throughout her life": I think you mean "admitted to struggling"; as written the admission is in Wikipedia's voice.
  • "She became addicted to heroin in the early 1990s, and her addiction was placed in the media spotlight in 1992 when Vanity Fair published an article by journalist Lynn Hirschberg which stated that Love was addicted to heroin during her pregnancy; this resulted in the custody of Love and Cobain's newborn daughter, Frances, being temporarily withdrawn in a Los Angeles County court and placed with Love's sister." A couple of things here. First, this is a long sentence; it would probably benefit from being split after "pregnancy". Second, the second half needs rewording -- it was the child, not the custody, that was placed with Love's sister.
    Looks like you didn't fix this one, so I went ahead and did it myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ordeal resulted in custody of daughter Frances Bean being withdrawn from Love": this is awkward phrasing. How about "...of a controlled substance, and subsequently lost custody of her daughter."? I don't think you need to repeat Frances's name.
  • Was she ever charged in connection with microphone stand incident?
  • "Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers, particularly the Riot grrrl movement, with Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside": a bit of an awkward construction. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like you're singling out Pretty on the Inside as having particularly influenced the Riot grrrl movement. If so, how about "Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers; in particular, Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside, influenced the Riot grrrl movement.
  • "Time deemed Hole's Live Through This to be supplemented by "primal guitar riffs and high-IQ lyrics": I'm not keen on "deemed", and saying that it was "supplemented by" the riffs and lyrics seems odd, but more to the point, what's this sentence doing in the cultural impact section?
  • Suggest explaining what "kinderwhore" is on first occurrence; no need to link it the second time.
  • The sentence in the "Cultural impact" section about "kinderwhore" make it appear that the name "kinderwhore" was specifically applied to her image, but the article on kinderwhore is less definite. Did the name exist before she adopted the style?

I haven't reviewed the sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drown Soda, are you there? Given this review has been open a long time, I will have to archive if the above points can't be addressed promptly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked these over and addressed most all of them, I believe. Some of the comments were about things that I hadn't written or inserted into the article (such as the repeat kinderwhore details, or the Time quote about Live Through This in the "Cultural impact" section), but I did remove the misplaced and repeated material. I did make edits for sentence flow and addressed the concerns that Mike Christie listed here. Apologies for having taken awhile to get back to this. Let me know if there is more, Ian Rose. Thank you! —Drown Soda (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made a few more copyedits; please review and make sure I didn't mess anything up. I have not reviewed the sources for reliability or done any spot checks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over it again and didn't see anything that stood out as incorrect or anything of that nature; looks good to me. I can run the page through Checklinks to check for dead URLs and try to weed those out. —Drown Soda (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]

This is looking good but I have a few points that may be worthy of consideration:

Midnightblueowl, I've addressed some of these issues and provided some explanations/concerns on others that I'm unsure how to approach—thank you for your feedback. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drown Soda. I've crossed out my initial opposition, although would ideally like to see the web citations archived. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Midnightblueowl, I started archiving sources but for some reason archive.org suddenly seemed to quit working (I couldn't get it to process any URLs—it would just take me to a blank white page. I will try and finish over the weekend. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

[edit]

The current ref #289 reads "Miller 2004, p. 195" causing a cite ref error - I suspect it should be Millard? Current ref #290 is missing page numbers - these look to be 195 & 196? "Cope, Julian (2000). Head-On/Repossessed" is listed in the bibliography but doesn't seem to be used as a ref? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Sagaciousphil, it indeed was supposed to be Millard . --Drown Soda (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this edit, {{Sfn|Love|2006|p=116}} (currently ref #85) was added but the year listed in the Bibliography is given as 2007? The ISBN link on Google seems to be a 2006 edition? Re the quote attributed to Millard (currently ref #290): as indicated above, the quote seems to start on page 195 but also flows on to page 196, at least on the pages I'm being shown using the Google link? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Note to Co-ordinators: These really are simply very minor drive-by comments; I haven't looked at any refs/sources in any depth.[reply]
        • Sagaciousphil: You're definitely correct about the year discrepancy on that citation—I'm not sure how there ended up a 2006 and 2007 in the SFNs, but I corrected them so they all uniformly are 2006, which is when that book was published. I also expanded the Millard citation #290 to include both pages (195–96). --Drown Soda (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after almost three months. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2016 [12].

True Detective (season 1)

[edit]
Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring 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 seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. In 2015 this article became a GA, but has unfortunately failed each FA candidacy (which numbers to four as we speak, woah), each due to the minimal attention it received. I've worked on this article on and off over the past year, and thanks to several copyedits and peer review feedback from the likes of @Aoba47:, I believe it satisfies all aspects of the FA criteria. Will the fifth time be the one? I hope so! Cheers. DAP 💅 5:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States

Comments by Brandt Luke Zorn

[edit]
  • Comment I'm going to start looking over this shortly. Big fan of this show... Er, this season that is. (There was so much promise in the idea of True Detective-goes-Chinatown, how could it have gone so wrong?) —BLZ · talk 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between this source, this source, and this article linked in that second source, I'm not really clear on the development timeline. It seems as though Pizzolatto wrote about two episodes; then (from the first source) signed the "blind" development deal with HBO (where they, according to Pizzolatto in the first source, seemed to secure the exclusive rights to run the show or not); then worked with Anonymous Content to get Fukunaga, McConaughey, and Harrelson on-board while he finished the full season's script; then, according to the second and third source, entered a bidding period with cable networks competing to run the show, and HBO won. First, I don't think this whole process is summed up adequately in the article. But second, there seems to be tension between the "blind" development deal, with the apparent exclusivity HBO gained at that stage, and the open bidding process. Do you know more from other sources that might reconcile the contradiction? It's possible Pizzolatto mischaracterized the nature or timing of his agreement with HBO in the interview but it seems he knew what he was talking about. Also lost is the role of Anonymous Content, which in the current draft merely "supported" Pizzolatto as he wrote the script for the second episode, but which according to the second source actually managed Pizzolatto, developed the series in-house, and produced it for HBO.
In regards to the contradiction, unfortunately nothing significant turns up. Perhaps the closest I've encounter being a Pizzolatto interview with Wellesley Cinema of New Zealand, in which the interview asks about his "unusual" deal with HBO, but Pizzolatto doesn't really clarify beyond what he has said to the media in prior interviews. The sources already cited in the article are the same and even a comprehensive spread in Vanity Fair from last season not cited here yields nothing. Perhaps he's only being vague and stating what is necessary of his agreement with HBO to the media rather than a mischaracterization, but ultimately it looks like there isn't much that can be done about the issue regardless.
  • Somewhere, maybe once in the lead and once in the body, there should be a quick explanation of what an anthology show is. The format and term are becoming more common but it should be clear to someone who doesn't follow TV at all that this is a show where each season is its own self-contained, unrelated story.
Done.
  • Be sure to tether every statement to a source. I had to go fishing to find the source for the sentence about Petrochemical America as an inspiration for the opening sequence. Unless a paragraph is derived from a single source, every sentence should be individually sourced, and certainly anything with a quote (which also should be attributed in-text as much as possible — both writer and publication, or to whomever is being interviewed.)
Noted.
  • Kudos for archive-linking all the sources!
It was a bitch archiving all of those links, but most definitely well paid off in the end!
  • Might just be me but I feel like the grid arrangement used here is better than the one used in the article. We can see the final product and intermediate stages at an equal size with the first frame, rather than the first frame dominating the arrangement.
I actually agree now that you've mentioned it. I've updated the file (twice in fact, because I thought I messed up the first attempt 😂), let me know what you think.
  • I was surprised to not see any mention of the famous extended shot from the end of the fourth episode.
This is something I've been going back and forth about and think a summation of that scene is better suited in its episode's article rather than the season article. But perhaps dedicating one or two sentences, or a minor paragraph wouldn't hurt as it is most obviously a significant event in the show's history.
I think filming might be a good place to mention it. Reception to that scene or in-depth consideration that would require a paragraph is probably unnecessary and, I agree, better suited to the episode article. Within the season article, I think it would work within the filming section as a (maybe the) characteristic example that speaks to the stylistic ambition of the show as a whole. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a whole book of essays on True Detective season one that goes uncited here. The back cover alone features praise for the series from philosophers Eugene Thacker, Nick Land (imo a total creep), and Simon Critchley. I'm not sure how much within the book is essential to improve the article to featured level. I haven't read it all. However, I can recommend the one essay I have read, "'True Dick'...The Accelerated Acceptance and Premature Canonisation of True Detective", which talks about the nature of the show's critical reception, the "spectacle of hyperbole" and hype, internal contradictions in the show's philosophical attitude, and yes, the McConaissance. I think the remaining essays may have some use unpacking the philosophical themes, but surely not all of them need inclusion. I'll leave it to you to determine which are worth synthesizing into the themes/critical perspectives already discussed: religion, pessimism, feminism.
I believe I've seen Nick Laud's reading of the show and was at one point mentioned in the article, but was removed. I'll have to take a look at that book, as I'd like to balance the amount of pop culture sources with academic sources.
  • Sorry to see the scant feedback in all the prior nominations, that's quite surprising considering the high profile of the show. I've also made minor edits to the article myself — let me know if you don't agree with any of my changes. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandt Luke Zorn: You're edits are appreciated. The prose even looks more polished than it did prior! Many thanks for your time and input, let me know if there's anything else I can clarify or revise in the article. Cheers! DAP 💅 5:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at this again, I think it's very very very close to FA quality. But, for the time being I have to withhold support until the following are met:
  • 1) I think the development timeline needs slight expansion and clarification within the article. I think you're right that the nature of the initial HBO deal and the subsequent bidding process is probably irressolvable from the sources, but either way some things, e.g. the role of the production company, need better explanation.
  • 2) There should be expansion of the themes/analysis section and incorporation of True Detection as a source. With a whole book of high-quality critical text absent, I don't think the article quite meets the standard for comprehensiveness. Each of the big-idea thematic topics likely merits a subsection of its own rather than merely a paragraph.
  • 3) Another principle subject of discussion among critics that seems to be missing: the unusual, perhaps singular auteur-ness of True Detective, given its sole writer and sole director. This is a topic suited to more-complete explanation on the main article for True Detective, especially since some commentary on the topic is about how both the strengths of the first season and the pitfalls of the second both seem to spring from the reliance on Pizzolatto as the sole writer. However, I think some of this should be woven into this article to convey to the reader just how unusual and surprising the process was within the industry. There's a hint of that in here already, but I think there's a bit more presently left unsaid.
  • I want to emphasize again how close the article is. I think overall it's clear you've invested considerable effort into crafting this, and the quality of that effort is plain to see. Note that my only reasons to not support right now are for what is not there but should be (and really #2 is bigger than #1 and #3 are); I have no bones to pick whatsoever with what is already there, which is thoughtful, polished work. I really want to support! And I won't oppose, in the sense of calling for the nomination to end, because I think the work needed to expand it to a level of satisfactory comprehensiveness is within reach in the time period of this nomination. If those three things are met I will feel confident in supporting. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Shucks, I'm just ecstatic to know that this article nearly satisfies the criteria! My copy of True Detection should be delivered within the next two or three days. In the meantime, I've taken the liberty to tackle your other concerns expand the production section and hopefully adequately clarified the development timeline, divided the themes section in anticipation for the essays and added a new section regarding the show's auteurist sensibility. Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow quick work, well done! Message me when you've got True Detection and I'll give it a final look. ——BLZ · talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandt Luke Zorn:, sincerest apologies on not responding in a timely fashion first and foremost. I had a busy week at my work/university and this was only exacerbated by the book being shipped 3 days late. But no matter, I've finally received the book earlier today. I've added about four of the twelve essays in the book and plan on either adding additional essays or perhaps expand a tad bit upon the existing material I've sourced from True Detection. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 1:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: any further comments? DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hi! Apologies for going AWOL, real-life work caught up with me. Looking over changes made in response to my review, I believe this article now meets the featured standard for comprehensiveness or other criteria my review addressed. I'm satisfied looking at the subsequent reviews that any other issues I could think of have been or are being addressed now. This article is worthy of being featured. Great work. —BLZ · talk 18:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! DAP 💅 15:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

[edit]

@DAP388: Hello, I'm not too familiar with the project of television series, but I'll try to provide you feedback since it looks well written and sourced:

In the episodes section, Original air date remains unsourced. I'm pretty sure the "U.S. viewers (millions)" has the dates so could you source it?
This is actually basic convention for tv articles of this variety. The templates I used for this page, Parks and Recreation (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1), are both featured articles and even they are structured in a similar way. I think that's with good reason, too. Sourcing everything in the table is trivial, would make for a sloppy presentation and distract readers from the article.
Same with the directors and writers? Is there a way to source it?
See above.
What's with the lines in the episodes' summaries? Are the episodes too long or do they change between timelines like Lost? The last episode's summary looks quite longer in comparison.
There are multiple timelines in the show's plot, primarily: 1995, 2002, and 2012. In the episodes the timelines cut back and forth between scenes. Each of the split sections in the episode summaries begins with the year, so I think it should be clear. The last two episodes are the only ones that take place within a single period; the last summary is not dramatically longer than the one for episode 5, it just looks bigger because it's a single paragraph. I think this part was handled quite well. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Brandt said.
The cast section is unsourced. Maybe the DVDs or sites like IGN have them?
Again, basic convention.
The second paragraph of conception is quite small. I would recommend to merge it with the first one or third one.
Done
Lastly, have there been news about sales of "Home media release"? This one is not necessary though. I'm just curious.
There is, actually. Added!
@Tintor2:, appreciate your input and time. Let me know if there are other concerns that need to be addressed. I'll also make sure to provide a review and comment on your FAC by next week, either Tuesday or Wednesday. Cheers! DAP 💅 5:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, good work @DAP388:. I'll give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47

[edit]

Support per my peer review. I could not find any issue that has not already been covered by the above comments. I'm glad to see that this is getting a lot of attention through comprehensive comments as I can tell a lot of work and time has been put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for the comment and support. Cheers! DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: @P. S. Burton: @Jfhutson: Pinging all users that have participated in prior FA reviews. DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

  • "He developed a fascination with fiction writing while attending graduate school at the University of Arkansas": I don't see this in the given source; am I missing it?
This is mentioned in Pizzolatto's Daily Beast interview, although he does not specify which university he attended for his graduate studies. That was actually revealed in the article from The Times-Picayune.
Do you mean the two answers after "How did you learn?" and "You mean writing fiction"? I don't think those support the sentence; or do you mean something else in the interview? And I know it's a minor point, but if you keep the sentence I do think you should cite the Times-Picayune article for the school; others may change the article in the future and it's best to have all the citations where they're needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, specifically where he says "those shows were actually filling my hunger for fiction as an audience more than the contemporary fiction that I was reading" in response. I looked upon another examine and I somewhat agree that what's said in the article isn't supported by the source as I initially. If need be, i can just remove it altogether.
I would, if I were you. I think the quote is about him consuming fiction on screen; the sentence in the article is about producing written fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.
  • "Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Alejandro González Iñárritu and Cary Joji Fukunaga, the latter of whom he knew from Anonymous Content": suggest "Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Cary Joji Fukunaga, whom he knew from Anonymous Content, and Alejandro González Iñárritu".
Done.
  • "Fukunaga carried out research with": suggest "Fukunaga spent time with" as simpler; I was going to suggest "worked with" but you have "work" later in the sentence.
Done.
  • 'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for corresponding scenes': perhaps 'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for the corresponding interior scenes", assuming that's what is meant.
Correct. Also done.
  • "The duo went with a tripod design": the duo? Sounds like Walsh is the one sculpting the nests; who else is being referred to here? From the rest of the paragraph it appears to be DiGerlando; if so, I'd be explicit: "DiGerlando and Walsh chose a tripod design..."
Walsh did sculpt them, but he and DiGerlando worked closely together during the whole process, hence "the duo". Also done.
  • "As such, Walsh built devil's nests": suggest "To reflect this, Walsh built devil's nests".
Done.
  • "southern Louisiana's remote landscape, which juxtaposes many of the characters' traits and personal, inner struggles": I don't follow this. Do you mean they wanted the title sequence to juxtapose these things? The landscape, by itself, does not.
Nope. This is how it was described by Clair in the interview. I did make the change to "setting", if that helps, since that is much broader in scope than "landscape".
Sorry, I'm still not getting this. I tried to follow the link to read/watch the interview, but all I found was the title sequence itself. Is there an associated interview on that website that I didn't spot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The associated interview is there below the video in the summary tab. Make sure you've clicked on that (although it should appear automatically) instead of the "credits" tab, otherwise, as the name suggests, only the credits will appear. This particular sentence is supported in the second paragraph where Clair says, "When we were initially briefed, Nic Pizzolatto, the showrunner, and Cary Fukunaga, the director, spoke a lot about how the landscape and setting of the show revealed the characters and reflected their internal struggles."
Found it; not sure how I missed that. OK, I see the source, but I don't think you can say "juxtapose" based on that; the source talks about the relationship between the landscape and the characters, not about the juxtaposition of the them. Also, you say "remote", but the source talks about the petrochemical infrastructure and pollution, which don't have connotations of remoteness at all. (As it happens I used to work in the petrochemical industry, and I've driven from New Orleans through southern Louisiana down to the coast to get a helicopter to the rig; the landscape is an odd mix of industrial and backwoods, and I can see why they wanted to use the landscape in the title sequence.) And one more thing: you say Pizzolatto and Fukunaga wanted the title sequence team to emphasize the setting; I don't think you can really draw that from the source, which just says it came up in conversation a lot. That may be why the title team focused on it, but it's not clear they were told to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I revised it a bit for clarification.
  • "the production team initially photographed the local scenery, which were woven together": "were" is the wrong number, but I think you meant to say something like "the resulting images were woven together".
Done.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: awesome! Appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback, many thanks! Let me know what you think.

More comments:

  • Why is the Swarmatron worth mentioning?
The show's score doesn't make much use of synthesizers apart of that particular piece.
  • "women are depicted as "things-to-be-saved and erotic obstacles" for said men": suggest cutting "for said men".
Revised.
  • Erin K. Stapleton needs to be introduced when quoted.
Revised.
  • "True Detective also explores Christianity...": suggesting cutting "also".
Revised.
  • "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, specifically Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895) and Thomas Ligotti, as well as nihilism and pessimism": I don't think this sentence quite works as you have it. Chambers' collection isn't a reading, nor is Ligotti, nor are nihilism and pessimism; they're relevant to various readings, of course.
Revised.
That's an improvement. How about: "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, often examining the influence of Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895), and the work of Thomas Ligotti." I've cut "nihilism and pessimism" here because it doesn't really fit into a sentence about the influence of weird and horror fiction -- if it's an important point I think it could be added elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "Allusions to The King in Yellow can be observed through the show's dark underbelly": I think this is a little metaphorical, given that most readers won't have read Chambers or heard anything about it.
That's understandable, but however obscure it may be, I think it's important even for a brief mention, especially since it was picked up by many of the critics who assessed the show.
Well, I agree it's important; what I meant to say was that it wasn't easy to understand the sentence. The source is behind a paywall, unfortunately, so I can't see how it's phrased there. The problem is that "dark underbelly" is quite vague -- does this mean specific horrible things that happen? A general malaise or sense of evil pervading the scenes? A nihilistic or despairing worldview that it supports? There's no way for a reader who doesn't already know the show to know what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal article was referring to the show's philosophy. I made a few changes for more clarity if that helps.
  • "the show's evolving philosophy, which increasingly examines a portrait where culture, religion, and society are direct by-products of biological weakness": what does "examines a portrait where" mean?
Revised.
  • "Another principal topic of discussion among critics is True Detective's auteurist sensibility" suggest "has been" rather than "is", since the rest of the section has the critical discussion in past tense.
Revised.
  • "a dynamic that provides the show a unique place": I don't think "dynamic" is the right word; the fact that two people controlled all the episodes is a fact, rather than an event.
Revised.
  • Looking at the source cited for Colin Robertson's comment, I can see why you include it in the "Auteur theory" paragraph, but I think you could make the connection a little clearer for the reader.
Admittedly, I'm not sure how to go about that since I more or less think the connection between the two shows is clear enough presently.
After reading through again I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I think that's it for tonight; I'll try to complete the review tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • The second paragraph of the reviews section isn't as coherent as the other three paragraphs. The first paragraph is about the overall positive reception; the third is about the performances, and the four gives some opposing views. The second paragraph seems to be just an assemblage of high-profile quotes.
I set it up that way so as to give the section a starting point. Perhaps I can merge the first and second paragraphs?
  • "Some reviews were not as enthusiastic as the consensus about the season": I don't think it's a consensus if there are dissenting voices; I'd rephrase this.
Done.

That's it for a first pass. I'd like to go through the reviews section again and see if there's more copyediting that might be helpful; I'll try to get to that tomorrow or the next day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Apologies for the not-so-swift response, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 21:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck everything except for the comment about the reviews. I have a minor point and a more general concern about the reviews section. The minor point is the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim"; I think this is best avoided, since although most of the reviews were very positive, the series certainly didn't receive universal acclaim, and using Metacritic's terminology seems less useful than just giving the score; the term is even somewhat misleading.
This is just more or less basic convention for media articles. I also tried to avoid the issue early on by including Metacritic's critics list for that year, which I think supports the notion given that, according to said article, True Detective was second only to Fargo on the critics lists that year. If these aren't valid enough reasons, however, then I will gladly remove the use of Metacritic's terminology.
More seriously, though, the whole review section doesn't read like an encyclopedic summary of the reviews; it reads like a list of quotes, with some thematic organization. I think the section would be better with quotes used sparingly to illustrate the points made. I may be being unfair here, because I haven't gone through and read every one of the 41 reviews Metacritic links to (and no doubt there are more). If you think I'm being unfair (or just want some examples), say so, and I'll do some reading and see if I can produce a few sentences that give you a better idea of what I'm talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're being unfair per se, but I do strongly disagree with your latter concern. I think most of what is in there adds to the general flow of that section and better reflects the reviews and how very positive they tended to be. In any event, some examples would be great and hopefully from thereon, we can come to a compromise, and if it ends up improving the article even more, then all the more better.

OK. I should say up front that I am not going to oppose this FAC, because this point about the reviews is my only concern, and I am not sure that my opinion on how review sections should be written is something other FAC reviewers would agree with. I don't want to derail a candidacy on something that may be an issue for me but not others. Having said that, I'll make the case below, and you can see what you think.

It's difficult to assemble a coherent narrative for a section on reviews or reception when there are only a handful of reviews to draw from, but that's not the case here. When there is so much review text to go through, I think the article text should be written as declarative statements about the body of reviews, with quotes only to illustrate the points made. That's not the case here. Look at the structure of the second paragraph: it's

Critic A declared "B". C identified the acting, dialogue, and sleek production as its most satisfying attributes. D agreed and said "E". In his review F said the season successfully marries Fukunaga's G with Pizzolatto's script, producing H. J felt the first half of the season forms "K", and by the fourth episode, L called True Detective "M".

I've left in the declarative text that is not quoted; I hope you agree that reading this it's clear that the paragraph functions mostly as a showcase for quotes, only providing direct information in a couple of places. Here's a rewrite of that paragraph in a form that I think is more desirable for a Wikipedia article. I'm making up the details here, which are probably totally wrong, because I haven't read the reviews -- but someone who has read the reviews should be able to write a version of this.

Reviews of the series praised the acting and dialogue. Harrelson's performance was particularly remarked on, with A declaring "B", and C commenting that "D". McConaughey's acting in the final episode also drew many positive comments, such as "E"; with some reviewers commenting that outstanding performances could be found throughout the ensemble cast. Several reviewers pointed out that the anthology format, which made it easier to attract top actors, might become more popular as a result of True Detective's success, though some felt this was just a temporary fashion.

In addition to being (no doubt) wrong, I'm not claiming this paragraph is particularly well-written. But it reads quite differently from the paragraphs in the existing review section.

To put it another way, imagine that you've recently read all of these reviews and pondered them, and that you then meet me in a pub, or at a bus-stop, or wherever, and I ask you "What did reviewers say about season 1 of True Detective?" What would you say? You wouldn't reel off quotes. You'd tell me what they liked, what most of them said, what themes ran through the reviews, and you might well recall a few choice quotes to illustrate your point. That's how I think this section should read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after almost three months. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2016 [13].

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second studio album recorded by Romanian singer-songwriter Alexandra Stan. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria after its first run was archived. It has as well undergone a peer review. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal

[edit]
Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk)
@Nergaal:  Done; Thank you so much for your comment. I added information regrading your point in "Background and development". Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: All the information about charting and sales is included in the "Reception" section. Also, there's no certification for this album anywhere. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14k seems kinda low. Is there an estimated total worldwide? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Nope, sorry. No material nor in Japanese or Romanian. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dan56

[edit]
Resolved comments from Dan56 (talk)
  • There are several instances of repeated citations, or multiple in a row. Some cases involve synthesis, such as The recording drew influences of various genres, including dance, techno, pop, rhythm and blues, EDM, Bhangra, Caucasian-flavoured music and German club music.[26][27][28] If the writer in each source offers different opinions on what the genres are, then they should be attributed separately and stated in the article as being the opinion of the writer; [critic A] observed dance and techno in the album's music,[26] while [critic B] believed it featured pop and Bhangra songs.[27], or something to that effect. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Issue fixed. Maybe have another look? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other instances I see involve stating facts from several sources in one sentence, which isn't incorrect but looks less tidy than it can be, like this one: "Thanks For Leaving" was released on 28 April 2014 as the first single from Unlocked simultaneously with its accompanying music video.[19][31] In this case, you may want to consider converting the citations to Harvard citations so the footnotes can be combined into one; I've done this often at articles when working toward FA, and here's an example from The Ecstatic. Hope these comments help, and good luck! Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I haven't implemented the "harvard" sourcing—as most of the citations don't even have an author or a date—but fixed the first issue. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: Thanks you very much for your comments; I appreciate your effort. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! With sources that have no authors or dates, the author field can be filled with "Anon." (for anonymous) and the year field can be filled with "n.d." (no date). Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: Added Anon. and n.d. to all sources provided. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and infobox - 1) I understand that Victor was the distributor of the album's first release--in Japan--but Fonogram is mentioned in the lead as being the singer's new record label, and it released the album in several countries--including her native Romania--so it'd make sense to include it in the infobox and make a note of it in the lead that it was one of the album's distributors. 2) I don't understand the part about "it consists of using instrumentation previously explored in her work"; it seems to repeat the idea of the preceding sentence but in more awkward fashion and different verbiage. Perhaps remove it? Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article body - 1) I would recommend another editor review the prose; issues that stand out include some stretching beyond what the sources verify--"it failed to gain much success" is more than what footnote number 11 actually says--and interpreting the sources--"issuance" confuses me in the second section; what does it mean in the context that the Romanian-language source is using it in or in the sense that it is a theme on the album? 2) The Billboard source doesn't explicitly say that "Mr. Saxobeat" was a worldwide hit; this sentence is a bit off-topic anyway, so it'd be best to remove it IMO. Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS - 1) The composers and producers in the personnel section are already all credited in the track listing section; MOS:ALBUM#Personnel suggests removing repeated credits when they're already in one of these two sections. 2) This article doesn't really seem to need a "Charts and sales" section, since there's only one instance of charting and only one sales figure to report, both of which are also already written in the article body. I would recommend removing the section. Using tables is useful in situations where there are several or numerous figures to list or organize; other times, prose is preferred (MOS:TABLE). Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: All  Done; the source questioned is literally reporting that the album itself lyrically approaches themes like "eliberarea, regasirea, un nou inceput", which translated are the things in the article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think whatever you're using to translate words from Romanian is misleading; eliberarea can more precisely mean deliverance, which is still ambiguous and is given no context here in the section. Does the source explain anything further, elaborate? Which songs are about what or how? As a reader, wouldn't you find it useless to have it stated that this is a theme on the album, period, no further explanation? Dan56 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: changed wording as suggested. I have to dissapoint you; the source does only say that the whole album has the themes in its lyrics, not selected songs, but the source is to be kept because it's probably one of the most reliable sources from Romania. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please attribute it as the writer's opinion then. If there are no other sources writing similarly of the album, or Stan/her writers explaining the themes they wrote of, then it's more appropriate to quote the source verbatim (in Romanian, and perhaps the English translation italicized and in parenthesis). Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: I have attributed it as the writer's opinion, but didn't quote it as there's no big deal with it. I mean, they don't further speak about it in the whole article, it's just a "feeling-less" enumeration of lyrical themes at the beginning of their topic. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards support, but please separate each writer's opinion so it is clear to the reader which is which; the same goes for the sentence about genres/influences. Also, the summary in the lead--about critics praising the album--doesn't seem accurate to me; there are only two reviews of this album discussed in the body, one which seems generally positive and another which seems negative. That "many" critics praised the album is a strong claim. If there aren't any more reviews to discuss, I would stay away from describing any kind of consensus or summary of critical reviews with only two that were known to have been published. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CaliforniaDreamsFan

[edit]
Resolved comments from CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk)
  • I'm not too sure about the usage of the Rihanna and Britney Spears' images; only one critic (as from the article) has cited comparisons towards the Unlocked album, which is a bit too much of WP:Non-free content (also WP:Image use policy).
 Not done I think that's okay. As far as I know, these imgs are completely free to use. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why is there an absence of the other track lists? Aren't they a crucial part of the album, regardless if its released in specific regions.
 Not done This was an implemented comments from the previous FC nomination of Unlocked. In fact, the track lists aren't anything special, so this pays off here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also an overuse of citations in sentences like "The track—later included on Alesta (2016)[46]—reached the top thirty in Argentina,[47] Poland[48] and Turkey,[49] and the top sixty in Italy,[50] Romania[51] and Slovakia.[52]" (Plus, I don't think these ar neccessary, knowingly that the article already has these references.)
 Done The citations are necessary, but tried to fix the issue. Have another look maybe? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "alt" and caption in the infobox, knowing that there are two covers.
 Done Alt was already there, but added caption now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are just some points that I have noticed. It's good work, don't get me wrong, but small things like these are still big needs for a FAC. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CaliforniaDreamsFan Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

[edit]
  • Shouldn't the label in the infobox only list the record company from the initial release? In this case, being Victor?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adevărul should be italicized
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A should actually be physically described in the "Track listing" section so it's complete
 Done written out Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DVD release mentions a DVD format of Unlocked being released, yet there is no mention of it in the article
 Done mentioned about it in the "Background and development" section. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Carbrera (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: Everything done so far. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose (by continuing your review), please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera Can you end this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the photo of Britney Spears is necessarily beneficial to the article; you can barely see her face
 Done Replaced with another one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Dance" and "Little Lies" were compared to French disc jockey David Guetta and Spears' Britney Jean (2013) album, respectively." → Who made this comparison?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't look like Unlocked was released as a DVD, but rather a CD with a bonus DVD, so the "CD Releases" table should just list the format with something like "Deluxe + DVD" or "Deluxe with DVD" (not a separate table)
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #5 should have a link for the iTunes Store in the parameter
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lengths in the "Track listing" don't add up to 57:30
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe some policy wants "2013-14" to be "2013-2014" now
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you abbreviate "Rhythm and blues" to "R&B"?
 Done
  • Shouldn't there be a track listing for "We Wanna"? There should be a dropdown for each available track listing of the album
 Not done See below Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state "six singles" in the lead prose but only include five in the infobox
Only five songs were released as singles as promoting the album. However, a "sixth one", "We Wanna", was released for the next studio album, but still appears on few versions of Unlocked.

@Carbrera: All done! Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: It initially did feature other tracklistings as well, but the former FA nomination suggested that only the main tracklist should be added. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera I've done all your comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: Sorry for bothering you, but I've pinged you like three times and I didn't respond. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera
@Cartoon network freak: The only thing I'm confused about is why there wouldn't be a dropdown for other editions of the album. Almost every album on Wikipedia with multiple editions displays the other versions for the reader; why shouldn't this one? Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: I fixed it now. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera, can you oppose or support the nomination now? I'm like pinging you countless times and you're not responding. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I am still confused as the track listing you added still does not show the song "We Wanna", despite it being mentioned in the article. Also, the additional edition should include info such as the writers and the producers. Carbrera (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera, I think I've fixed this now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information available on the producer for "Zoom Zoom"? Carbrera (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera, Sorry, but there is no info. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I would strongly advise removing the "Writer(s)" and "Producer(s)" columns from that tracklist since they are empty and serve no purpose. Carbrera (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera Removed the latter column. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008

[edit]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (talk)

I was asked for a review on my talk page, and here are a couple of things I found early in the article. I'll look at the rest later.

  • Background and development: "was made available for digital consumption in October 2013." I really think that "consumption" needs to be changed. It sounds like they were selling food instead of music.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recordings and artwork: "with only one of her eyes being visible". Remove "being", as it is unnecessary in the sentence and its presence leads to awkwardness in this sentence structure anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: Pop Shock wrote that the latter one was good enough to be an X Factor, a reality television music competition, winner's single." The bit inside the commas is making this a rough read. How about "was good enough to be a single by the winner of X Factor, a reality television music competition" instead?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotion: Another "consumption" here in the first paragraph.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing: The first two words of "with them featuring a modified tracklist" seem like they can be removed to tighten the writing without affecting the meaning of the sentence.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In references 5 (third link), 18, 33, 47 (third and fifth links), 48, and 49, the hyphens should be replaced with en dashes per the MoS. Very minor, but I'm sure someone will bring it up if I don't. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jennica

[edit]
Resolved comments from Jennica (talk)
  • I feel like it should be "Recording and artwork"
 Done It is already. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotion should go above Reception, since it includes information about singles. Singles come before any kind of album reception
 Done You've already done it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be "Personnel" and not "Credits and personnel" per WP:MOSALBUMS?
 Done You've already done it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done You've already done it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jennica, thank you for your time. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jennica Can you please support or oppose to this nomination? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jennica✿ / talk 23:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would combine the first two sentences of the lead in a similar fashion to that done by 4 (Beyoncé album) to make something along the lines of "Unlocked is the second studio album by Romanian singer and songwriter Alexandra Stan, released on 27 August 2014 by Victor Entertainment." The bits about the album being a follow-up to Saxobeat is unnecessary (it is assumed when you say it is the second studio album that it will naturally be a follow-up to the first one) and being released digitally (as it implies the album was only released digitally when in fact there was a CD release according to the rest of the article).
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of adjectives in front of FonoCamp in the lead. I would prefer if you replace that with "the first international songwriting camp FonoCamp" as you have worded it in the body of the article to make it clear what exactly this event is for unfamiliar readers.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about the Cherry Pop Summer Tour and Unlocked Tour should be in the "Promotion" section of this article for two reasons: 1) it is a major part of the album and without this information clearly put in the article than it is not comprehensive enough to be a featured article and 2) everything in the lead has to be in the article in some way shape or form. You even have an image from the tour in that section without actually mentioning the tour. You need to include general information about both tours (when they took place and critical responses to it). This is a major issue that I am surprised and concerned that no one has brought this rather large absence of information up in the reviews before this.
  • Once you add the information on the tours to the body of the article, remove the references in the lead (as during the expansion, the references should be in the "Promotion" section).
  • Also, did Alexandra Stan perform the music anywhere outside the tour or do any major press interviews or something along those lines for the album? That should be in the "Promotion" section as well. The "Promotion" section as it currently stands only covers the album's singles and not much else of the actual album's promotion outside of that.
  • Only one reviewer made comparisons between this album and those by Britney, Rihanna, and Sia so the final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is somewhat misleading. You could modify it to the following to more accurate: "Critics gave generally positive reviews of the album, with one comparing it to works by American singer Britney Spears, Barbadian recording artist Rihanna and Australian performer Sia."
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say Billboard Japan Hot 100 in the third paragraph of the lead. No reason to remove the Billboard part of the link.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "managed to reach" to just "reached"
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the semicolon after Poland. That's not how semicolons work. You don't need any form of punctuation there.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subtitle for the block quote should "talking about" not "on talking about". The way you have it worded it now means she is talking about how she talked about the album, which is not correct.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for the commas around Saxobeats (2011) in the first sentence of the "Background and development" section.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "Shortly after"? Do you have an exact time? If not, it may be better to just say "After".
 Done Added "After" Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of the same section read rather awkwardly and disjointed to me. I believe a revision of both paragraphs would make all of the information flow more clearly together. Remember that to qualify as a featured article, the prose has to be strong and I do not believe that the prose of this section is very strong.
 Done Tried to reword a little bit Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by the transition "After her recovery". Her recovery from what? Yeah, you said there were allegations of physical abuse from her former manager, but it seems like there is something missing connecting this two things together.
 Done Completing this a little bit Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You identify Prodan as a manager twice in the first paragraph of the same section.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Background and development" section, you discuss the album's singles. This section would be more appropriate for the "Promotion" section. In fact, there is some overlap between the two sections where it is a little too repetitive for my liking.
 Done Changed some things; take another look Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also include a lot of information about the album's release, which should be put after the sections dealing with the background and recording of the album. I would suggest moving the information about the release of the album from this section and the information on the artwork of the album from the next section into a new section entitled "Release and artwork" as done in 4 (Beyoncé album).
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first half of the "Recording and artwork" paragraph is very disorganized. You start off by talking about the writing process and then the composition of the album (the various genres, and the lyrical content). It is all really good information, but it needs a major revision. Also, a lot of this information does not deal with the actual recording process of the album, but instead deals with again the writing and composition.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest making a section entitled "Recording and composition" where you can put all of the information about these two. I am not a fan of the way the article is structured right now at all, as I believe it is very confusing and not what I would expect for a featured article.
 Not done I've modified this in another way; take a look now Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence ("Vanilla Chocolat" and "We Wanna" feature lyrics written in French and Spanish, respectively.) does not have a reference.
 Done Added the credits because of lyrics booklet Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find the image in the "Promotion" section to be that helpful to be honest and would recommend removing it. It is rather low quality, and would suggest replacing it with a different one if possible.
  • I agree with a previous reviewer that the images of Rihanna and Britney should be removed as it is giving undue weight to one review of the album. If at least two reviews noted a similarity to these two artists, it would be fine, but I find the images to be appropriate for this. My issue with this is the context in which the images are used.
  • You only have two reviews for the album. I would imagine there has to be more than that. I would suggest finding at least one or two more if possible.

@Cartoon network freak: I want to first say that you have great work with this article and it definitely deserves to be a good article. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is ready in its current state to be a featured article. There are just too many issues I have with the content (like where is the information about the tours?) and the structure (the first two sections are very messy and need revision to clear lay out a narrative for the reader). I know that this is not the answer you want to hear, especially since this has been up here since the end of August, but I have to oppose this, as I really do believe it is not up to the level expected for a featured article as this time. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination has been open for almost four months and I do not see a consensus for promotion to Featured status. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2016 [14].

Leo Frank

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born in 1884, Frank managed a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia. When a 13-year-old girl who worked at the factory was found dead in the factory’s basement, Frank was arrested and charged with the crime. After a highly-publicized trial, Frank was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to no avail, but had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by Georgia Governor John M. Slaton. In addition to being political suicide, Slaton’s action was ultimately fruitless, as Frank was kidnapped from a rural prison, driven across the state, and lynched in a remote wooden area. His case coincided with the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan and the question of whether he was guilty continues to be debated.

The article went through another FAC way back in 2004, and is currently a good article. There have been some issues with sockpuppet editing, and while this has usually been nipped in the bud at SPI pretty quickly, the article has indefinite semi-protection and I'll be sure to monitor the article in case any issues arise. I've put a lot of work into the article, as have several others, and I'd appreciate any feedback! Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments by Maunus: I will take a look at this article over the next weeks. My first immediate suggestion is that the references section is a little unwieldy and untidy, I would would suggest separating text notes and short citations in the references section, and make the referencing use short citations consistently by moving all long citations (e.g. note 84 and several others) into the bibliography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maunus, do you think it would be good to have a "Notes" sub-section with any long notes, then a separate "References" sub-section with short ones? It would thus be:
10 Notes and references
10.1 Notes
10.2 References
10.3 Sources
Let me know if this looks good or if I should take a different approach. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be best, given how many long textual notes the article has.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change. There are a few references with several bullet points that I left as references, but overall it should be a lot better. Feel free to take a look and let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think this is much better - there are still some long refs that I think should be moved to the bibliography and cited as short refs for consistency. And I would prefer the bullet points in the notes section because they have explanatory text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that trying to put bullet points in the notes formats them incorrectly, to where they are simply inline rather than line breaking before each bullet. You're welcome to make the changes directly if you like. Note that I also made some changes to your lead edits, although I made sure that the parts you edited would still make sense. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the bullet points are really important, so I would not have a problem getting rid of them for the sake of separating notes and references. I think Im about ready to support this but I want to read thhrough it one more time to be certain. Best, ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change. Let me know what you think about it as well as the article overall when you get the chance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leo_Frank_Signature.png needs a license tag for the original work
  • File:FrankLynchedLarge.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know he died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking this over. The Signature image has a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag already, but if there's another specific tag I need please let me know which one it is. For the lynching one, I replaced the 70 years tag with a US one, so that the death date of the photographer doesn't matter. If there's anything else, feel free to make the edits directly or let me know below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The CC tag on the signature covers the derivative work - the reproduction by tracing - of the signature, but it does not cover the original signature. That is quite likely PD, but I don't know for certain which tag would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added a PD-US tag here, but I'm not sure if there is a proper way to format the page. I tried to say that the original is PD and the derivative is CC4, but if there's a better way to do it feel free to edit that page. This is my first FAC, so I'm still learning some of the finer points. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any formatting is fine so long as it's clear, and I think yours meets that standard. However, that tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation, which means we need to know where you traced it from to ensure that requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to this document, where I traced the signature from the second page. As this is a notarized petition to a government agency, I believe it should be adequate for "publication", but please let me know if this is incorrect. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now had a chance to read through the article again. I don't find any conspicuous reasons to oppose its promotion, for which reason I support. However, I must say that this is the kind of article where I am not 100% comfortable promoting without having an expert review the content for any misrepresentations of the academic literature. I also do think that the article could still be improved by adding details about the scholarship, how have different historians described and evaluated the case and what is its relevance today. This second level of description of the literature would help me feel sure that the article is accurately representing the literature. This does not mean that I dont trust Tonystewarts' editing of course, but simply means that I think this type of article requires a level of expertise from the reviewer that I simply dont have (I havent for example had time to read any of the used literature here and therefore my support rests on good faith).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maunus: I want to get back to this as this FAC has aged quite a bit. I have responded to some critiques by another user at the bottom of this review, and appreciate your support. FWIW, I did email Leonard Dinnerstein during the GA review who did a dissertation on the case in the 1960s and corrected some things with his advice. I also made sure that the literature and different perspectives were covered adequately, such as when I added the reference to websites supporting Frank's guilt. If you think there's anything else I should do at this point, feel free to let me know.
  • @Nikkimaria: Also want to bring you in since this is currently the oldest active FAC. If you have any comments on what you mentioned above in August or anything else about the article, please let me know. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

I peer-reviewed this in Nov/Dec 2014, since which time it has doubled its length to stand at a whopping 116kb of Wikitext and 11,500 words. WP articles at featured level are required to be comprehensive, but that does not mean exhaustive. I don't like to criticise the efforts of the article's authors who have obviously laboured mightily, but extravagant length does affect both readability and reviewability. With careful reading I'm so far only down to the Jim Conley section, so have much more to cover. Here are my comments to date, to which I would add a recommendation to the authors consider whether greater use of a "summary" approach in some of the sections could reduce the length considerably.

  • It might be worth skimming through the GA review, which was when we rewrote and added significant amounts of text. The reviewer, SilkTork, also expressed some concerns about the length, although he also requested additional detail in several areas. We did some trimming then and made an effort not to add details that were trivial. Of course, there could still be material that would be better off removed, so if you have any specific recommendations once you finish the article I'm all ears. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • A five-paragraph lead is contrary to the MoS recommendation of a maximum four. Overall I think the lead is a little overdetailed; it should be a very concise summary of the subject with the details confined to the text. The first paragraph is fine, but I think the remained should be condensed into three shorter paragraphs. In particular, the final paragraph could be reduced to a single sentence, since these various adaptations are all given in the text.
  • I went ahead and implemented your recommendation regarding the final paragraph. Reading the rest of it, and knowing the case, it seems compressed to me already, and taking more out would leave out important details. But I'm open to any other recommendations if you think it's still too long. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His legal case" → "His trial"?
  • In the fourth paragraph you don't date the march of the 1,200, so "two months later" is indefinable.
  • I rewrote this a little based on what was in the body. 1,200 specifically isn't mentioned in the body, nor in a couple sources I looked at, so I went ahead and took this out. I added the date of the kidnapping and lynching, as this is important and wasn't mentioned in the lead before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Social and economic conditions
  • "had been going through" → "was undergoing"
  • "a failing rural situation" is somewhat inelegant. I'd reword the whole sentence as follows: "To serve a growing urban economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the increasingly impoverished countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in "squalid slums". The terem "squalid slums" is not worth quotation marks; use a slight paraphrase, e.g. filthy, sordid, wretched.
  • "Despite their success, they recognized themselves as a 'people apart', which left them 'with a pervasive sense of anxiety' ". Again there are quotes wrapped around fairly mundane phrases, without attribution, and again it would be better to paraphrase. As a rule, direct quotes should be used sparingly, when particularly arresting phrasing is used, and should be attributed unless the source is obvious from the context.
  • "One of their responses..." – "strategies" rather than "responses"
  • "enhance the image of Jews in the dominant society" – another unattributed and paraphrasable quote.
  • The Marx quote beginning "In isolated instances..." is followed by two footnotes but is not itself cited.
Leo Frank
  • "Frank's northern culture and Jewish faith added to the sense that he was different" – do you mean added to his sense, or a general sense?
Mary Phagan
  • Can you give more details of the nature of Mary's work at the pencil factory?
Discovery
  • "Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open across where the vulva would be." I would end this sentence at "torn open"; the remaining detail is overspecific and unnecessary.
Police investigation
  • "Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands..." – whose description of Frank's behavior is this?
  • "...and asking questions before the police could answer" – I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely, questions always precede amswers?
  • This quote from the Oney book should clarify the previous two comments:

...he paced restlessly across the parlor, wringing his hands and firing questions so fast that he apparently didn't leave Black time to answer: "Has anything happened at the factory? ... Did the night watchman report anything to you? ... I dreamt I heard the phone ring around four o'clock."

Evidently, Black's reply to this barrage was a curt "Mr. Frank, you had better put your clothes on, and let us go to the factory." Subsequently, the detective would remember it this way: His voice was hoarse and trembling and nervous and excited. He looked to me like he was pale ... He seemed to be nervous in handling his collar. He could not get his tie tied, and talked very rapid. Boots Rogers would echo these impressions:

Mr. Frank seemed to be extremely nervous. His questions were jumpy ... His voice was a refined voice ... kind of lady-like ... He was rubbing his hands ... He seemed to be excited.

  • Frank tells the police that he did not recognise the name Mary Phagan, but later says Phagan was in his office between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m on Saturday? Is this not contradictory?
  • "Despite claiming he did not know Phagan the day before, Frank told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..." This is not a "despite" sentence. I think the required sense is something like: "Having claimed the day before that he personally did not know Phagan, Frank now told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..."
  • "Jim Conley, the janitor at the factory, was arrested on May 1 and would remain in custody until the trial." This sentence seems premature, given that the next section is entirely devoted to Conley.

I'll resume when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for the delay in resuming this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll try to get to it today, and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming at last! Will post soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sections:

James "Jim" Conley'
  • Can you clarify why Conley was kept in custody long after the police had decided that his shirt was not bloodstained? Why were they holding him?
  • The Oney text just mentions that he made "a statement the detectives didn't even bother to take until fifteen days after his arrest". Apparently he didn't post bail due to his financial circumstances, but the text doesn't specify and thus we don't mention it in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At trial, Conley changed his story..." At what trial? Frank's or his own?
  • "He said Frank withheld the money until he had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace." Needs rephrasing, e.g. "He said Frank decided to withhold the money until Conley had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace."
Media coverage
  • "As many as" is unnecessary editorial emphasis.
  • "prepared ten militia companies": a better word than "prepared" might be "organized"
  • " Albert Lindemann ... opined that "ordinary people" may have had difficulty in evaluating the often unreliable information and "suspend[ing] judgment over a long period of time" while the case developed". Sentence not grammatatical as written. Maybe add "were" after the "and"
Trial
  • Second para: I'd reorganise this, so that the present second and third sentence are placed at the end of the paragraph. The prose would flow more naturally.
  • "bloodstains" is one word
  • "The defense theory..." – delete the word "theory"
  • "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's alibi, which suggested he did not have enough time to commit the crime". This sentence needs strengthening; an alibi that merely "suggests" something is not much of an alibi. I suugest: "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's account of his movements, which indicated he did not have enough time to commit the crime".
  • "The prosecution's analysis of stomach contents placed the time of death at 30 to 45 minutes after the last meal. Of this analysis, the defense's expert witness contested both the methodology and the conclusions". I'd say "her last meal", and delete the words "Of this analysis". Can you explain the grounds on which the defense contested this analysis?
  • Changed to 'her', and the defense is mentioned in the next sentence regarding the inflammation, as well as later in the paragraph where Arnold, one of Frank's attorneys with prior medical experience, rebuts some prosecution arguments. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow progress but here is more:

Trial
  • You should link Dorsey at first mention, in the previous section.
Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frank's alleged sexual behavior
  • What is the significance of mentioning "Monteen Stover"? How does he/she fit into the narrative? (I see this is answered later, but you need greater clarity at this point)
  • "cross-examined unsuccessfully" – what does this mean? If it means that they could not break his story you should say so.
  • "Judge Roan recognized..." – that's the wrong verb. "Said", "remarked", "ruled", there are many better alternatives.
Timeframe
  • "vivid parts" – "vivid" is wrong. "Crucial" is the word.
  • "whose father worked for the Montags" – who/what are "the Montags"?
  • "Frank's attorneys located witnesses to dispute the alleged early departure from lunch". What is the nature of this allegation, and who made it?
  • "the locked up factory" needs a hyphen. When was the factory locked, and who locked it?
  • I added the hyphen, and the page cited just mentions what the article does about it being locked up, although a previous page noted that they locked up at 6 PM. This was during the incident where a fired employee came back at that time to retrieve items he had left in the factory. We could specify this here, although I don't believe it's necessary. We could even leave out the locked-up part in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conviction and sentencing
  • This seems very sudden: no closing arguments, speeches, summaries? No mention of how long it took the jury to reach a verdict?
Appeals
  • "Frank's absence from the court when the verdict was announced..." Shouldn't this have been mentioned in your trial account section? It seems important to know why Frank was not in court to hear the verdict.
  • There's some pretty dense legal stuff in this section. I found this particularly daunting: " Louis Marshall, President of the American Jewish Committee and constitutional lawyer, urged them to raise the point, and the decision was made that it should be made clear that if the extraordinary motion was rejected they intended to appeal through the federal court system and there would be an impression of injustice in the trial." Is there a less wordy way of getting this point across, if indeed it is necessary?
  • Earlier in the article, I added a footnote explaining what an "extraordinary motion" is, and the prior sentence puts this one in better context. The paradox about making it less dense is that it would become more wordy, so I think the current text is a good balance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the significance of the Carter letters was disputed" → "the significance of Conley's letters to Annie Carter was disputed"
  • "the testimony as it related to" → "the testimony relating to"
  • "should have been raised earlier in the process" – delete last three words, as implied
Commutation hearing
  • "including one written by Judge Roan shortly before he died..." When did Roan die? This should have been mentioned earlier.
  • He died on March 23, 1915. The article doesn't mention this, and upon looking back at each mention of "Roan" in the article there's nowhere that it would make sense to mention it. The specific day seems too trivial for an encyclopedia article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Smith analyzed the notes and produced a 100-page analysis" → "Smith produced a 100-page analysis of the notes"
  • You have: "The commutation ... was unpopular with most Atlantans" but later: "The public was outraged. A mob threatened to attack the governor at his home..." which sounds like a lot more than "unpopular".

The rest to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, after a break: Although the FAC has been open for five weeks, I seem to be the only reviewer active here, albeit with long pauses. But I would really like to see some other input, which will be essential if the article is to earn promotion. Maybe Maunus, who showed an early interest, could be pinged? Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton: I finally got around to all of your points above. If you have any comments for the rest of the article or anything else, please let me know when you get a chance. As you suggested, I'll also ping Maunus and Nikkimaria below.
  • @Maunus: You made a comment a while back about some of the references being too long. I'm considering moving refs 237, 238, and 240 to the notes section, although I apparently won't be able to use bullet points if I do. I could make it one paragraph and add references after each sentence, although this might be too convoluted relative to the current bulleted references. If you have an opinion one way or the other, we can consider that.
  • @Nikkimaria: You commented on the licensing of Leo Frank's signature in the infobox, as while he died prior to 1923 in the U.S., the publication status was initially ambivalent. As I mentioned at the top of this page, I added a link to this document which is an application for executive clemency. This wasn't "published" in the sense of a book, but is a legal document in the public record that I believe should suffice for public domain criteria. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I'm afraid we can't keep this open much longer without some more commentary; we'd generally have archived it before now but I wanted to at least give Maunus the chance to wrap up his review, and see if one or two more might stop by in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following up... Firstly, tks Maunus and Sarastro for adding comments.
  • Secondly, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability before long.
  • Lastly, as this is Tony's first FAC we'll also want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. These checks can be conducted by people who've commented already or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- I'd been prepared to leave this open an extended period because I felt we were working towards consensus, and pressing on seemed the better alternative to archiving and starting a third time down the track, since Tony seemed to be trying to meet Sarastro1 somewhere in the middle (but I would prefer to see feedback from Sarastro). Brian was I think was broadly supportive, but then he's suddenly had to retire from WP, so we'll need another reviewer even if Sarastro is prepared to support promotion (Mike Christie, if you're still willing, pls stand by for the call if it becomes necessary!). Also we still need a source review and spotcheck per my comment above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I added a request for image/source review and spotcheck, and can provide further verification of sources beyond the linked page numbers as needed. Depending on WP policy, I can also send PDFs of books to reviewers privately if this is not copyvio. That way, it would be easy to search through them and spotcheck as needed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, sure, just ping me if you'd like me to do a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

I've read to the end of the Background section, and I'm seeing a few minor issues but nothing that is particularly worrying. My only larger issue would be a few terrifyingly long sentences in places. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
  • The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
  • "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
  • "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
  • "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
  • "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
  • The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
  • "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
  • "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
  • "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
  • "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
  • If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
  • I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
  • Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section? Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • "into an established Georgia family": Not too clear what we mean here by "established".
  • "Shortly after her birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved the family back to their hometown of Marietta, Georgia.[28] During or after 1907, she moved the family to East Point, Georgia, in southwest Atlanta, where she opened a boarding house.": Not too sure what hometown means here: is it her hometown, or where the family lived before. Also, we have close repetition of "moved the family". I think it may also be neater to open the first sentence with "Shortly after Mary's birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved..."
  • "That spring, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where she earned ten cents an hour operating a knurling machine that inserted rubber erasers into the metal tips of pencils, and worked 55 hours per week.": Again, if we were looking to cut some of this back, do we need to know how much she earned? Or precisely what her job was?
  • The "Discovery" section begins with three consecutive sentences starting "On..."
  • "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[33] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police": Again, looking to cut the length, do we need to know he used the toilet? Why not "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the factory basement near an incinerator and called the police."
  • "Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched. Her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.": I have a slight problem here with the repetition of "Her" and the use of short sentences which makes this seem slightly sensationalist and tabloid. By all means, list the injuries and facts, but why not make it a little more neutral? To me, as written, this seems more like a dramatised account. (For example, compare the style here to the style of the Social and Economic section) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the police arrived after 7 a.m. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer.": Again, if we are looking to reduce the word count, we could lose everything after "nervous" without any huge detriment to the article. If we really need to know his "symptoms", we could add these in a note without distracting from the main tale.
  • "gave a written deposition to the police that provided a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday": Also, could we trim this back to "gave a brief written timeline"?
  • "and that he had a confrontation with ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving": It's not quite clear who was the "he" having a confrontation, Frank or Lee.
  • "Frank also mentioned an unidentified Negro in the factory, although Scott did not place much emphasis on this point.": This sentence is apparently unreferenced.
  • For consistency, I've fixed a few instances where we are quoting a "current" writer but use the past tense. I think the literary present applies here, but I think consistency is the most important thing.
  • It's not quite clear in the Police Investigation section when, why or for how long the Pinkertons were involved. Who asked them to get involved? As written, it could be read that Frank got them involved, but it is not clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we actually state the cause of death in the main body of the article. Also, was an autopsy carried out?
  • Still thinking about the length, I think some of the Conley section could be cut back and given as more of a summary. Although it is well-written and fairly concise, it is a large chunk of a large article. For example, rather than detailing all his different accounts separately, could we not combine them into one and summarise them? I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be combined and shortened. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm down to the end of the Conley section now. I've made a lot of suggestions already, so I think I will pause and give the authors a chance to respond, although I'm not sure how active the nominator is at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review so far. I'll get to these shortly. My hope is that this review isn't archived simply due to it being idle, as I'd like to see it pass and will make improvements as necessary.
  • One other preliminary remark I'd like to make is that the length of the article is largely due to added content from the GA review, which was intended to make the article more complete by adding content from previous versions. Brian also made a comment about length, so perhaps it could be whittled down some without reverting to the pre-GA version of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's nearly two weeks since I made these comments. As far as I can tell, nothing has yet been done about them. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that! I've been very busy but it is the weekend now, so I should get to this by end of day tomorrow. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tonystewart14 response
[edit]

Here's the first part:

  • The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
  • As I mentioned previously, we added a good amount of content during the GA review as the reviewer noticed that some important aspects of the case were missing. However, we left out some more minor points that would have required several paragraphs to explain. There may be a few places where things could be cut, but in general the article should be near the length it is now. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
  • Update: This edit from Midnightblueowl merged two paragraphs together to make the lead four paragraphs. If you think that it should be done another way, feel free to comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GA review made several mentions of the lead needing to adequately summarize the article, especially for a longer one like this, but didn't mention paragraph count, which is not a hard requirement. The first two paragraphs of the lead are short, so I think at least by word count it's not terribly long and covers the article well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
  • "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
  • "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
  • "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
  • The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
  • I re-read this section just now and recall another comment I made in this review where I said there has to be a balance between density and article length, and I think the text achieves this. I don't think anything is too hard to understand and it's presented in a reasonably brief text. If you have specific suggestions, feel free to mention them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
  • I made the change you suggested to be more concise. I also removed the second phrase since we already mention how commerce and manufacturing were growing, and this implies that agriculture was struggling. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
  • "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
  • "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
  • This refers to the view that Jews were employing Gentile child laborers, such as Frank hiring Phagan and other girls. This is in the rest of the paragraph, so it would be redundant to write it out in that sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
  • I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
  • This was addressed in the GA review. We actually didn't have the social/economic section for a long time, but the GA reviewer felt this put the article in an appropriate context to answer why Frank was noteworthy. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section?

Quick reply: Hmm, so to summarise the replies here, "Thanks, but no thanks". I'm not sure there is much point, in that case, in continuing the review. Incidentally, "The case attracted national press" has been in this article since before the FAC began. Also, the lead should be self-contained and should not need reference to the main body to make something clear to the reader. Finally, I appreciate that there were a few issues at the GA review, and things were done for that review. However, this is not a GA review. As it stands, this article is undoubtedly a GA but in my view it is still some way short of FA standard. Given how long this review has been open, that is a concern, and the replies here do not reassure me, particularly as my comments were made over two weeks ago. Rather than worry about the GA review, perhaps addressing the concerns of FA reviewers would be a way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I should first state that my responses to you were similar to Brian Boulton's in that I went point-by-point and either noted a change or gave my opinion as to why the current version was better. I did make several changes due to your suggestions, which are appreciated. I'll get to part 2 shortly.
I'm happy to address any responses you have to my comments, but I don't want you to feel like I'm blowing you off; just that I'm giving my take as to why I think the current version is preferable. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2:

  • "into an established Georgia family": Not too clear what we mean here by "established".
  • "Shortly after her birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved the family back to their hometown of Marietta, Georgia.[28] During or after 1907, she moved the family to East Point, Georgia, in southwest Atlanta, where she opened a boarding house.": Not too sure what hometown means here: is it her hometown, or where the family lived before. Also, we have close repetition of "moved the family". I think it may also be neater to open the first sentence with "Shortly after Mary's birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved..."
  • "That spring, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where she earned ten cents an hour operating a knurling machine that inserted rubber erasers into the metal tips of pencils, and worked 55 hours per week.": Again, if we were looking to cut some of this back, do we need to know how much she earned? Or precisely what her job was?
  • The pay is important because it sharply contrasts with that of Frank, who earned $180/month plus a portion of the profits. The exact job description isn't mandatory, but is brief and a reader would probably wonder about it if it hadn't been mentioned. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Discovery" section begins with three consecutive sentences starting "On..."
  • "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[33] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police": Again, looking to cut the length, do we need to know he used the toilet? Why not "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the factory basement near an incinerator and called the police."
  • I'm not sure the toilet part is crucial, but I don't think the idea of going around and snipping little bits is very helpful, and one might wonder why he went down there in the first place. Like several other points here, however, it could go either way and perhaps this could be implemented should someone else come by and second your motion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched. Her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.": I have a slight problem here with the repetition of "Her" and the use of short sentences which makes this seem slightly sensationalist and tabloid. By all means, list the injuries and facts, but why not make it a little more neutral? To me, as written, this seems more like a dramatised account. (For example, compare the style here to the style of the Social and Economic section) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the police arrived after 7 a.m. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer.": Again, if we are looking to reduce the word count, we could lose everything after "nervous" without any huge detriment to the article. If we really need to know his "symptoms", we could add these in a note without distracting from the main tale.
  • "gave a written deposition to the police that provided a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday": Also, could we trim this back to "gave a brief written timeline"?
  • This could be changed to "gave a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday to police", but like the last one and several others, I don't think it sounds as good nor does it shorten the article or even the section by any significant amount. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that he had a confrontation with ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving": It's not quite clear who was the "he" having a confrontation, Frank or Lee.
  • "Frank also mentioned an unidentified Negro in the factory, although Scott did not place much emphasis on this point.": This sentence is apparently unreferenced.
  • For consistency, I've fixed a few instances where we are quoting a "current" writer but use the past tense. I think the literary present applies here, but I think consistency is the most important thing.
  • It's not quite clear in the Police Investigation section when, why or for how long the Pinkertons were involved. Who asked them to get involved? As written, it could be read that Frank got them involved, but it is not clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we actually state the cause of death in the main body of the article. Also, was an autopsy carried out?
  • I mentioned the strangling explicitly in the body, since "strangled" only appeared in the lead until now. Regarding the autopsy, a longtime editor of this article in the GA review mentioned that it had been removed because it "would confuse rather than enlighten a reader". It is, however, discussed in the last paragraph of the Trial section before the "Frank's alleged sexual behavior" subsection. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still thinking about the length, I think some of the Conley section could be cut back and given as more of a summary. Although it is well-written and fairly concise, it is a large chunk of a large article. For example, rather than detailing all his different accounts separately, could we not combine them into one and summarise them? I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be combined and shortened.
  • It's not a bad idea, but I think it's important to show how Conley's account changed on multiple occasions. This is one of those points that would be good to have a third opinion from someone knowledgeable in the case as we seem to be stuck in a bit of an impasse currently with much of this review, although I do value your feedback and think you have contributed many good ideas. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro final comments
[edit]

Final comments: I've read to the end of the article, and many of my reservations stand. To be blunt, I'm expecting these to be ignored or argued away. And to be blunt, I don't think this article is FA standard at the moment (incidentally, the prose is very good). There are a few odd little issues with referencing which need sorting, but the main issue for me is excessive over-detailing. This article is over 11,500 words but the nominator is resisting all suggestions that cuts be made. The level of information in here is, in my view, unsuitable for an encyclopaediac summary. I will also confess to being rather irritated by the attitude of the nominator throughout this review. But as I have no wish for my irritation to cloud my judgement, I am not opposing the article. Even so, I think it falls short of FA standard and would require a lot of convincing to support. Reducing the word count would be a start. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "despite denying having seen": A bit of a mouthful, might be better as "although he denied having seen"?
  • "On the day of the murder, Conley said he saw Phagan go upstairs, then he heard a scream coming from upstairs shortly after.": Maybe "...go upstairs, from where he heard a scream coming..."
  • "Disputing this version of events, the person behind the pay window, and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line, both testified that in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day.": A few too many commas for the reader here; it took me a couple of reads to get the meaning. I'd prefer a bit of a re-write such as "Two witnesses—the person behind the pay window and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line—disputed this version and testified that, in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day."
  • Returning, without much hope of anything happening, to the theme of length and over-detailing, we mention the importance of the time of death twice: in "trial" and "timeline". Is there any reason we need to mention this twice?
  • There are many paragraphs which are apparently unreferenced at their end, or which only have a note rather than a reference; for example, the first paragraph of Timeline and the entire second paragraph are apparently unreferenced; so is the end of the first paragraph of Conviction. Even if the reference is given afterwards, it is usually a good idea to have a reference at the end of each paragraph, at least, to avoid someone slapping a cn tag on it. This is worth checking throughout.
  • "Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, testified that he spoke briefly with Frank in Frank's office at 12:20. Frank had not mentioned...": Can we avoid close repetition of Frank here?
  • "As said above, Quinn placed Frank in his office at 12:20": Again, why are we repeating what we have already said? Surely it would make more sense to re-order this to avoid having to mention the facts again? And I've never seen "as said above" in a FA before.
  • I think the Timeline section is over detailed. For example, why do we need to list what every witness said about where and when they saw Frank, when we have already said that Frank's time was accounted for by witnesses? There are a huge number of times and events listed. Really, this should be summarised much more concisely.
  • "The sensationalism in the press that started before the trial continued throughout the trial, the appeals process, the commutation decision, and beyond.": This needs rephrasing or attributing, as we are presenting an opinion on the behaviour of the press, in wikipedia's voice.
  • In the After the Trial section, we are referencing quotations using a mixture of references and notes; really, one form (references) should be used for consistency. It may be technically correct to reference the quotations this way, but it is a little disconcerting to see two different types of referencing.
  • The second paragraph of Popular Culture seems to be entirely referenced to a website for The People v. Leo Frank, which does not support anything but the existence of that film. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my response to the final comments. These were in fact helpful in many ways, so thank you for your feedback. I also removed some paragraphs to clear out unnecessary content from the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "despite denying having seen": A bit of a mouthful, might be better as "although he denied having seen"?
  • "On the day of the murder, Conley said he saw Phagan go upstairs, then he heard a scream coming from upstairs shortly after.": Maybe "...go upstairs, from where he heard a scream coming..."
  • "Disputing this version of events, the person behind the pay window, and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line, both testified that in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day.": A few too many commas for the reader here; it took me a couple of reads to get the meaning. I'd prefer a bit of a re-write such as "Two witnesses—the person behind the pay window and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line—disputed this version and testified that, in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day."
  • I feel that mdashes are a bit of a roundabout way of reducing commas, so I rewrote as follows: "Both the person behind the pay window and the woman behind Ferguson in the pay line disputed this version of events, testifying that in accordance with his normal practice, Frank did not disburse pay that day."Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning, without much hope of anything happening, to the theme of length and over-detailing, we mention the importance of the time of death twice: in "trial" and "timeline". Is there any reason we need to mention this twice?
  • I'm thinking the last paragraph within Trial might be unnecessary. The meat of this paragraph is in the beginning paragraph of Timeline and the other details are probably too trivial for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. As there has not been much progress in regards to shortening the article, I'll go ahead and take it out and would entertain anyone who feels it should stay. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many paragraphs which are apparently unreferenced at their end, or which only have a note rather than a reference; for example, the first paragraph of Timeline and the entire second paragraph are apparently unreferenced; so is the end of the first paragraph of Conviction. Even if the reference is given afterwards, it is usually a good idea to have a reference at the end of each paragraph, at least, to avoid someone slapping a cn tag on it. This is worth checking throughout.
  • "Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, testified that he spoke briefly with Frank in Frank's office at 12:20. Frank had not mentioned...": Can we avoid close repetition of Frank here?
  • "As said above, Quinn placed Frank in his office at 12:20": Again, why are we repeating what we have already said? Surely it would make more sense to re-order this to avoid having to mention the facts again? And I've never seen "as said above" in a FA before.
  • I think the Timeline section is over detailed. For example, why do we need to list what every witness said about where and when they saw Frank, when we have already said that Frank's time was accounted for by witnesses? There are a huge number of times and events listed. Really, this should be summarised much more concisely.
  • "The sensationalism in the press that started before the trial continued throughout the trial, the appeals process, the commutation decision, and beyond.": This needs rephrasing or attributing, as we are presenting an opinion on the behaviour of the press, in wikipedia's voice.
  • In the After the Trial section, we are referencing quotations using a mixture of references and notes; really, one form (references) should be used for consistency. It may be technically correct to reference the quotations this way, but it is a little disconcerting to see two different types of referencing.
  • I see there are four notes in question, and all but one have references within the notes. The references allow a reader to see more of the quote beyond just a few words if they wish. If this should really be changed to just a reference, it could be done, but personally I think notes are more appropriate. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of Popular Culture seems to be entirely referenced to a website for The People v. Leo Frank, which does not support anything but the existence of that film. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstand slightly. Does that reference support, for example, "In 1937, Mervyn LeRoy directed They Won't Forget, based on the Ward Greene novel Death in The Deep South, which was in turn inspired by the Frank case. It was the first major film adaptation based on the Frank case."? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All of them seem appropiate especially since they are free, so it passes. By the way, could you make the image review in my own FAC, Tidus? It's only nonfree and two free. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination has been open for over four months and consensus just has not developed to promote it to Featured status. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2016 [15].

Mother Teresa

[edit]
Nominator(s): ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a saint of the Catholic Church who has been recently canonised as saint due to Christmas season coming i feel it should be featured on wikipedia ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor

[edit]

The article looks in good shape but there are somethings that bothered me:

  • First the lead. Per WP:Lead avoid using quotations or references there since the body is supposed to have them. If it is a controversial statement, try to avoid it.
  • "Indian views on Teresa are not uniformly favourable." A small sentence in without source. Combine it with another paragraph. Also, avoid short paragraphs. Imagine you are writing a formal letter. Same with reference 40.
  • "In 1991, Mother Teresa returned for the first time to her homeland and opened a Missionaries of Charity Brothers home in Tirana, Albania." This is also unreferenced. Regarding "On 13 March 1997, she stepped down from the head of Missionaries of Charity. She died on 5 September 1997" I would also recommend it to combine with the previous or next paragraph.

Other than that, the article suffers from similar issues with tags placed in similar place. Ping me like "@Tintor2:" once you think the issues I mentioned were solved. Also, if you have free time, Ii would appreciate if you take a look at my FAC. Regards and good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: I think the above discussed problems are almost resolved, Aren't they do feel free to contribute for the same and commenting to make it more better Thanks for giving your valuable time for it --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but it still have some issues like the unreferenced "Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone."" and "On the Hindu right, the Bharatiya Janata Party clashed with her over the Christian Dalits ("untouchables"), but praised her in death, sending a representative to her funeral.[citation needed]".Tintor2 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vensatry

[edit]
  • Comment – Two things: (I) It appears the nominator is relatively new to editing and has not made any edits to the article; also it seems they haven't consulted any of the top contributors. (II) They have opened this FAC with the sole intent of taking the article to TFA on 25 December. —Vensatry (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply for the above:@Vensatry: I agree that I am new to it but there is no such hard rules that I cant contest any TFA nomination, And i am searching some highly experienced editor which will help me in this article if u know anyone do suggest me , req (comment II) the same has been said in lead paragraph. Is there any need for such comments? Do correct me if u believe I am wrong --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not meaning to discourage you, but it seems you're totally unaware of how the process works. Yes, there's no 'hard rule' for TFAs, except that the articles should be existing FAs. To nominate an article for FAC, you should be a major contributor, or at least should've consulted the top contributors. Above all, it gives me an impression that you're not aware of the FA criteria. To benefit the first timers, the community has made a proposal that editors are strongly encouraged to seek the help of FAC mentors. Hope this helps! —Vensatry (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: It gives me extreme joy to inform u that I have discussed the same with mentor @Jimfbleak: and he has been guiding me a lot thanks for informing me for the same. Thanks for your valuable time u gave to comment on the article --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked @Tiven2240: and the page is a former GA. Is it possible to a B become FA without a GA review? Anyway, the FACs can be quite hard so I wonder if the nominator User:Vensatry is motivated to work in this article to make it first GA. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my advice was that it couldn't be made a FA in the time scale (before 25 Dec) that the nominator suggested. to answer the question above, it doesn't have to have been a GA (mine rarely are), but it's advisable for an inexperienced FA editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiven2240: There's no need to be hyperactive. You did not even care to check the link, did you? As far as I can see, Jim hasn't given you a green signal. Yet, you have straight away nominated a delisted GA without even caring to check for improvements. Tintor2, articles (of course, they should meet the FA standards) can be nominated for FAC without having the need to go through GAN. But in this case, I'm afraid. —Vensatry (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: I have read the link when it was put forth on Jim's talkpage i was aware of the same u discussed but It was @Jimfbleak: widely said that discussion should be taken on it. Regarding you afraid in this topic i say u try your best to make it best as I believe noone is perfect but we must try to be i am aware Jim said it's not possible for the article to be featured on Christmas day but one day I think I will see the article flourished on wikipedia's featured place and I hope u too help in making the article great @Tintor2: Thanks for your contribution ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but aside from the process issue of the nominator not having prior involvement with the article (a practical point, as without such involvement it's usually difficult to deal with critical commentary) the article appears underprepared with several fact tags and uncited passages; I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. If the nominator would be prepared to invest the time in becoming familiar with the article and perhaps taking advantage of the FAC mentoring program, a future nomination might well be possible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 [16].

Battle of Prokhorovka

[edit]
Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the largest tank battles in history, which occurred in July 1943 during the Second World War in the Eastern Front, between Nazi German and Soviet forces. It was the climax of the wider Battle of Kursk, which was a turning point of the strategic balance in the Eastern Front: The Soviet Union permanently gained the strategic control, and the Germans permanently lost the capacity to launch any more major offensives in the Eastern front. EyeTruth (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there a reference for this: "Thus the artillery fire which the tankers depended upon to sweep their path of advance and suppress German anti-tank gunners was not adequately present."?
  • same as above for: "Nonetheless, the battle is still regarded as one of the largest tank battles in military history"?
  • No ref added for now. I know a lot of relatively recent tertiary sources, like documentaries, regard it as such; a compromise around the former epithet that is now increasingly becoming known to be erroneous. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for: "...with another 212 tanks and self-propelled guns under repair, and 7,607 casualties."?
  • For citations 1 to 8 where you have the excerpt, is this really necessary, as none of the other citations use this style? If it is necessary, potentially putting them into the Notes section rather than the Citations section might be a more consistent approach.
  • Those are citations for the results in the infobox. In the past, they have been the subject of endless edits and argument for years, and over time this solution materialized. See archived talkpage discussions for more details. EyeTruth (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Further reading, is it necessary to use Russian language here: "Замулин, Валерий" and "Москва: Xранитель" (I think it might be best just to translate this)?
  • fixed, except for the publisher "Xранитель".
  • "...and other historians corroborate his narrative" (probably best to name these historians in the text here)
  • "...tanks in the Eastern Front, July 1943" --> "..tanks on the Eastern Front, July 1943"
  • there are a few duplicate links per the duplicate link checker: Tiger I, Panzer IV, Operation Kutuzov, assault gun,
  • is there an ISSN or OCLC that could be added for the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies?
  • "reposture" --> "re-posture"?

Initial comments -- I'm a bit concerned about the use of Healy:

  • Healy, Mark (2010) [2008]. Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4–17 July 1943. Stroud, UK: History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-5716-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I'm not personally familiar with the work, but I had followed this link from the main Battle of Kursk article (Licari, Michael J. A Review Essay: Books on the Battle of Kursk. Archived from the original) and the review was rather negative: "Healy's book is like most others in the Osprey series: it is a bland, somewhat uneven overview of the battle, and contains several important errors." From my experience editing the main article, I recall removing some rather POV statements cited to Healey, such as "burden" & "forced", so I was not surprised by a critical review. History Press seems like a minor publisher too; I'm not confident about their reputation for fact checking and accuracy. With many excellent sources cited in the article (Glantz & House; Clark; Showalter, etc), perhaps Healey is not needed?

Separately, I have some concerns about the POV of George Nipe, especially the article that is linked from bibliography link, which states: "Thus, the battle for Prochorovka ended, not because of German tank losses (Hausser had over 200 operational tanks on July 17) but because Hitler lacked the will to continue the offensive." This seems to echo Manstein's self-justification after war, with the article appropriately named "Battle of Kursk: Germany’s Lost Victory in World War II" (see Lost Victories). I had previously encountered Nipe's Platz der Leibstandarte: A Photo Study of the SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" used as a source in POV-challenged articles relating to Waffen-SS.

It looks like Nipe wrote a solid operational study (e.g. this review: link). But some of his conclusions are questionable, and are not in line with what I've read in other sources, such as Robert Citino & Showalter.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Healy wrote two books. One back in the 1990s, and the other (the one cited above) more recently. The former draws heavily on the inflated version of the battle from Soviet/German postwar accounts (not archives). The latter replies heavily on German archival material. Nipe's POV may be overreaching at times, but he's been credited by several other historians as a pioneer in piecing together a more accurate picture of the battle using German archives. He certainly has a weaker knowledge of the Soviet perspective and archives (seen him giving very inflated figures for Soviet losses, due to quite sloppy inferences from weak sources). EyeTruth (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The POV statements cited to Healey that you removed are the works of one of the primary contributors to the article, who had a very high regard for the German view and pushed it into the article a little too hard. We clashed over that sometimes. EyeTruth (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Kursk-1943-Plan-GE.svg: particularly as the legend is non-English, suggest providing more explanation in the caption
  • What kind of information do you think might be useful? I'm thinking of restating relevant names in familiar terms (e.g. "5. GPzA" is the 5th Guards Tank Army, and "Pokrowka" is Prokhorovka); would that be helpful? EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, File:Prokhorovka,_Battle_of_Kursk,_night_11_July.png needs more explanation, and suggest scaling it up
  • Do you mean scaling the image in the article, or scaling it in its own image page? If the latter, then I have not done that before, and I may need some cue to the right direction. EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rotmistrov_portrait_WWII.jpg: you're going to need a much stronger rationale to use a non-free image here, and suggest not using the "unique historic image" tag, and last source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed fair-use claim (which you had suggested that I consider) was sufficient, going by our last discussion over that image. I would like to retain the image because it brings a much needed balance between German and Soviet pictures in the article (an issue that I've seen become a point of contention in other WWII articles), so if there is anything else more acceptable than the fair-use claim that I can try out, please let me know. Alternatively, do you think the only acceptable outcome possible is to remove it? EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think there is a potential fair-use claim to be made, but the one currently in use just isn't strong enough to explain why we need a non-free image. Basically any claim you make should explain how the use meets each of the non-free content criteria, particularly point 8 - how does having this image enhance reader understanding and/or why would leaving it out be detrimental to the article? You should also use a different tag - {{non-free biog-pic}} might be possible depending on your rationale, or {{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frieser 2007

Is due to be published in English in March 2017, or so OUP tells me. It might be worth postponing the review until copies are available in research libraries. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but as it's been open around six weeks without approaching consensus to promote, and there's been little-to-no activity this month, the review appears to have stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Perhaps the best thing would be to do as ÄDA suggests and incorporate material from the new work when avilable, then submit the updated article to a formal or informal peer review before re-nominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2016 [17].

H. H. Asquith

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tim riley (talk), KJP1 (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... H.H. Asquith, the last British prime minister to lead majority Liberal government, and on that account and the later decline of the Liberal Party alone a significant figure in British history. TO say nothing of his policies. And the War. Nommed on behalf of self, Tim riley, and KJP1.Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim wrote the first third - birth to the Premiership; Wehwalt wrote the second third - Premiership to the War; and I wrote the last third - the War to death. All building on the pre-existing article. Moving the article from my sandbox into mainspace meant that it wasn't possible to show this in the Revision history statistics. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is problematic for attribution purposes; perhaps a history merge would be in order? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but the utility is limited. Perhaps linking to this discussion on talk would be enough?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond me technically, I'm afraid. But very happy to work on it with someone more competent if the view is that a history merge would be the best approach. The "originals" are readily available in the Sandboxes. My personal preference would be for a merge, if this can be done. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles (which applies to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, sections called ==The Biography== should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] DrKay (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content-wise it's a step in the right direction but still needs a fair bit of work. Hopefully I should be working on the post-1916 bit - the long sad coda when he hung on for a decade after he ought to have retired - this weekend.
The bits on his premiership are the strongest part of the article, but even there there a few things which need some kind of brief mention - OTOH the Marconi Scandal, the wave of strikes, the CID meeting during Agadir where Asquith (personally, afaik) backed Brigadier (as he then was) Henry Wilson's plan to deploy a BEF to France in the event of war. There's probably a bit more to be said about Ireland. The section on the intrigues of December 1916 needs a going-over as well, not because it's wrong but because it's material of byzantine complexity which must be almost unintelligible to the general reader - more a case of another pair of eyes. It needs a bit more explanation and some of it could be made less confusing (hell, it confuses me) by footnoting controversy over dates where Beaverbrook was almost certainly in error, or perhaps even the stuff about Northcliffe, who was no friend of Lloyd George and the evidence for whose involvement is largely circumstantial.
The pre-premiership sections are good on his early life but less so on the politics, and again there are a lot of things that need a mention and/or fuller treatment - the events of his Home Secretaryship (Featherstone, Welsh Disestablishment) and Asquith's role in the politics of 1895-1905 (the Boer War split, the free trade campaign of 1903, Relugas where it was Asquith who ratted on his co-conspirators).
That's not criticism of anybody. To be honest there is probably a case for hiving off his long and complex premiership into a separate sub-article, perhaps even two with the split at 1914. Happy to continue this on the article talk page. Maybe we can do Lloyd George in some future year.Paulturtle (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the question is length and emphasis, and people can differ on this. For example, I considered including the Marconi matter, especially since you suggested some months ago that the article took too positive a view of Asquith. But I decided the explanation, including introducing various people, wasn't worth the edification to the reader. It's the same with the other prewar matters you mention. We're happy to add anything useful, but I think the issues are at worst cosmetic. As for L-G, happy to discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more than cosmetic - Marconi was, apart from being one of the all-time great British political scandals, along with the aftermath of Agadir and the wave of strikes one of the reasons why Asquith let the Irish situation drift for a couple of years. On the other hand it's a classic example of something which doesn't need more than a few sentences stating what Asquith did and referring people to the relevant article. At the moment the article is falling between a few stools - it's already pretty much long enough to justify splitting and goes into full detail on a couple of topics (the Budget/House of Lords crisis which both Wehwalt and I have worked on and the fall in December 1916 which I think is KJP1's work) whilst omitting quite a few things and not going into enough detail on a few others, e.g. the formation of the coalition in May 1915 (a truly murky episode, that one), and just how close that government came to falling apart, several times in fact, over conscription and Ireland. On the other hand, I had to "do" Asquith for History A-Level a number of decades ago and I'm perfectly well aware that an article like this needs to be kept accessible to the general reader, through clear writing, dumping as much as possible into related articles and adding summaries where appropriate. I'm typing up the last of my notes on the WW1 period at the moment and should be working on that section of text over the next fortnight.Paulturtle (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you anticipate when you have edited to your satisfaction, that you will support the promotion of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Composing properly-cited text is hugely time-consuming but at this rate of work, hopefully before the end of the year. I am prioritising this and pushing on as fast as I realistically can (I had, fwiw, planned to work on Aneurin Bevan this autumn, having done a lot of work on Gaitskell and Rab Butler). There may be further tweaks after that, e.g after I've dug out my notes on Cameron Hazelhurst and May 1915, but they needn't get in the way of article reviewing.Paulturtle (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I think I've gotten those. I've substituted in for the ones I've deleted others that appear to be copyright proper. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

According to Koss, Asquith was sceptical about the tales of his Roundhead ancestry (Asquith/Askwith is a not uncommon Yorkshire name), which were accepted as fact by his official biographers. I don't see any evidence that anybody has trawled two centuries of parish records to check.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've no idea either - and not sure it would belong in an HHA article if we did - it's already a very long article! KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the account of his childhood unclear. His mother is said to have been in poor health but a strong character and a formative influence, but she is not mentioned thereafter and the impression is that he was separated from her after his grandfather's death. ODNB gives a bit more detail, stating that he was educated in his early years by his mother (a point worth mentioning), and that she had a heart condition and frequent bronchitis. After her father's death, she moved to St Leonards, presumably for her health, and her sons remained in London while attending a day school. This sounds like the usual pattern of boys living away from their parents during term time. According to ODNB, Asquith's wife was the daughter of St Leonards friends (the article says Manchester), which suggests that he stayed with his mother there in school holidays, and the comment that he was treated as an orphan appears misleading. The statement in the lead that he spent the rest of his childhood at boarding school and lodging with families not his own is incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Koss makes no mention of Asquith ever seeing his mother again, actually. Maybe the evidence just hasn't survived. Can check Jenkins tomorrow. Correct about her influence on his early education, but being a domineering character and an invalid are not mutually exclusive - it was a not uncommon form of passive-aggression in Victorian ladies (e.g. Florence Nightingale).Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that being an invalid and domineering are mutually exclusive, but that it is extremely unlikely - not to say implausible - that a woman with that character was separated from her sons from the beginning of their teens onwards. Looking for evidence that they ever saw her again is like looking for evidence that they had breakfast each morning - it is possible that they did not, but it would be too obvious to mention that they did. You are also missing the point I made above that ODNB gives a different picture of his childhood from the article, and directly contradicts it on two points. The article says that Asquith lived at boarding school and lodgings in London, that he was effectively an orphan, and married a family friend from Manchester. ODNB says that he lodged in London while attending school as a day pupil. It does not say that he spent his holidays with his mother, but that was the usual pattern for upper class boys of spending term time away at school and holidays at home. Maybe the writer who suggested that he was effectively orphaned does not know that. As Asquith married a family friend in St Leonards, where his mother had retired for her health, he must have spent considerable time there. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asquith briefly attended a boarding school in Yorkshire before being farmed out to live with somebody in London, while attending City of London (day) school. Going to boarding school was and is relatively normal for well-to-do families, lodging with other families rather less so, hence the comment by one of his biographers that he was “treated like an orphan”.
Helen Melland was the daughter of a Manchester doctor. Asquith met her while he was staying with his mother one summer (ODNB says he had just turned 18, so would have been mid September just before he went up to Balliol) and she was staying with (presumably mutual) friends in St Leonards. ODNB and his other biographers (Jenkins, Koss) all agree on that.
As far as Asquith’s relations with his mother go, the last letter from him to her in his official biography (Spender & Asquith p29) in 20 May 1868, when he was 15. He spent that holiday with her in 1870, when he met Helen. She died in 1888, aged 60 (Asquith would have been 36 or so) and before she died Asquith assured her that Piggott letter was forged (Spender & Asquith p16). As far as published biographies go, that’s all we have to go on, and writing anything else would be jumping to conclusions. They may have been regularly in touch throughout his childhood and young manhood, or they may have had relatively little contact. He may have loved her deeply, or he may have loathed her and merely gone through the motions on their occasional meetings. We simply do not know, unless somebody has another biography that says different.Paulturtle (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at Jenkins, and he certainly writes of the "ending of any effective home background" by 1864, when HHA was 12. I think this is what Levine means. He certainly didn't stay with his mother on a regular basis thereafter, living as a boarder in private homes. As such, I don't think I'd agree the lede is wrong. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manager of The Times, C. J. Macdonald" ODNB has D. J. Macdonald.
Amended - many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should actually be J. C. Macdonald, as in John Cameron Macdonald 1822–1889. See for example The History of the Times by Morison or Irish Journalism Before Independence by Rafter. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, as illustrated here [19]. Amended with thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest cutting down the text in the lead on his early life and adding something about his important reforms as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
completely agree.. I'm working my way through the text backwards and will probably refocus the introduction when I get up to the top, if nobody else has done by then. Somebody started adding links to it the last time I was about to, and I didn't want to be edit-warring with them.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the whiggish element favoured McKenna's appointment" This is the first mention of McKenna.
I think he's now linked properly. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tell me, Mr Asquith, do you take an interest in the war?" This needs some context - who said it and when and why?
Lady Tree, I think. It was intended as a joke, but like many such jokes made him look bad when repeated by others.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed Maud Tree. I've tried to contextualise it.KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Asquith was not himself a 'new Liberal'" What was a new Liberal?
More emphasis on social reforms rather than nineteenth century laissez-faire (and no interest in doing much about Irish Home Rule till the events of 1910 forced it on him).Paulturtle (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With deployment of troops into Ulster imminent and threatening language by Churchill and the Secretary of State for War, John Seely, around sixty army officers, led by Brigadier-General Hubert Gough, announced that they would rather be dismissed from the service than obey." I had to read this sentence several times, but I take that it means threatening language by Churchill and Seely - threatening the unionists?
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were threatening the Unionists, and Churchill made an inflammatory speech at Bradford, one of the first occasions in which he used his catchphrase "Let us go forward together..." There were conspiracy theories, widely believed at the time and never entirely disproven, that it was intended to provoke a response so that the UVF could be crushed, hence Bonar Law's "hellish insinuation" that Churchill wanted to make "another Poland" out of Ulster.Paulturtle (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asquith later (in 1913) wrote to Churchill, stating that the Prime Minister had always believed and stated that the price of Home Rule should be a special status for Ulster. In spite of this, the bill as introduced in April 1912 contained no such provision" This wording is a bit confusing. I would state first that the bill did not contain the provision, and then say (I presume) that Asquith made clear to Churchill that he planned to concede the point.
  • You imply but do not spell out that the bill passed a second time in 1913.
Isn't the article long enough already?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Bill did indeed pass a second time in 1913, with very little fuss actually. The original plan was for no special status for Ulster, but to concede such status if necessary ("Home Rule within Home Rule"). Then the argument shifted to an temporary optout for the Six Counties.Paulturtle (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that the article gets relations with Germany before WWI right. It is not a subject I know much about, but the article seems to imply that rearmament was set aside after 1909, which is not my impression. ODNB on Churchill says that he became increasingly alarmed about German intentions from 1910, that in response Asquith appointed him First Lord of the Admiralty, where he set about modernising and building new battleships.
It's not that rearmament was set aside, it obviously wasn't, given that they were building the dreadnoughts. It's just that it wasn't a big political issue, with the Lords crisis. The paragraph already leads off with and links the arms race. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asquith's cautious handling of his colleagues saw a "slump in resignations."" What does this mean - that ministers were resigning in protest at the prospect of war but the the number of resignations declined?
I've cut that quote. Asquith's success in getting cabinet members to stay is adequately spelled out in the next paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dardanelles Campaign and the Shell Crisis" I would link these.
Linked as suggested. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crawford expresses how little he and his senior Unionist colleagues were involved in the key discussions" "expresses" seems an odd word here.
Agreed, and changed. Really appreciate the time you've taken to review and the detailed comments. Look forward to more. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this has been open close to two months and there's been no new commentary for half that time, so I'm going to archive this and you can perhaps try again after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016 [20].

Pop Warner

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rybkovich (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the life and coaching career of legendary American college football coach Pop Warner. He is one of the key innovators of modern football strategy. Rybkovich (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - seems like a shame that no one has gotten to this sooner.

  • The article seems like it's a bit short on details about Pop Warner himself, rather than his football accomplishments. Is there nothing more in the sources?
? Have not found any significant info re his relationships, major events out side of his coaching. But I do think that there is allot about his personality that comes through the context of football events - pleasant, empathetic, drinks, thinks through when it comes to the game, but takes chances outside of it. Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence also seems a bit lacking. Warner was obviously a football player and coach, but his legacy has clearly been far more than that. You can't explain all the nuances, but I think it would be good to at least hint at his impact right up front. Done
  • For the tournament, Warner and the other team members earned $23; although the expected share was $300 per player, $618 and $8,000 today; it was a financial failure. – so they earned $23 instead of the expected $300? This isn't clear, nor is the dollar conversion (23 -> 618 and 300 -> 8000?).  Done
  • Be careful with the blockquotes. I'd be sure to distinguish who Jenkins or Powers are ("historian" or something similar is enough).
? I introduced the writer - name, the kind of writer, the first time the name is used, later just the last name is used prior to the quote. You thik that works? Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you very much. Will get back re the issues ASAP. Question: is there anyway to mirror this discussion on to the Pop Warner talk page? Rybkovich (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you meant? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exectamundo :) Rybkovich (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of those seem in rybkovich's capacity to fix, but I felt I would chime in due to also doing some work on the article. For details about himself, do you mean in say the early years or personal section? Or neither or both. RE: opening sentence, what add "pioneering" or something? Wouldn't count on myself fixing that one. RE: retirement, woodworking is one. Cake (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MisterCake, I don't really have specifics in mind, but I'd like to know something/anything more about him as a person. Right now I only know his parents, his wife, two vices, and painting, and there's a pretty large gap in his retired years (did he really do nothing in that time?). If there's no sources for his personal life, so be it, but I'd like to make sure that we've done our due diligence. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pope relays that apple pie with butter was another vice, but I figured it unnecessary with the childhood nickname. As I recall, he painted and had a woodworking garage in his retirement. Pope also mentioned "songwriting". One might add his cursing pre-Carlisle. Cake (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Welcome to FAC, Rybkovich and MisterCake! I'm sorry the article hasn't gotten much attention to this point, as this is a major figure in American football. These are my initial thoughts after reading part of the article and making some copy-edits:

  • While I understand that details of Warner's personal life are likely to be somewhat sparse (coaches in the early 1900s probably didn't get major press attention like a Bill Belichick), I do agree with Ed that we should say more about his impact on football in the first few sentences of the lead. If nothing else, you should move the next-to-last sentence of the lead up, as that would help a great deal. Also, it seems to me that Warner introducing the three-point stance is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, as that marked a major change in playing style. Done
  • Cornell: Since language like "today" is discouraged because it can become outdated easily, I recommend changing all conversions to "in XXXX dollars" or similar language. Done
  • In the extensive list of books cited, make sure that all of the books have publishers listed. Something like the Howie Long book, for example, should have a publisher available. You'll receive a source review if the FAC goes well, and you might as well take care of such issues now.  Done
  • Reference 161 is a dead link. Try checking the Internet Archive to see if an archived version is available. Done
  • References with all caps in the titles and publishers – numbers 146, 148–150, and 158 – should have the all caps taken out. Done
  • I believe the Manual of Style recommends against having multiple sub-sections with the same heading, which occurs with two Cornells: one in the early years part of the article and one for his coaching career. Try changing the first one, since it makes sense to leave the one in the coaching career section the way it is. Done Does this work?
  • Cornell: Let me get this straight: Warner coached two teams at the same time for several years? That's fascinating, and I recommend we add some more details on this if available. How did this work, in terms of his time commitments? Did the teams' games always take place at different times of the year, or did he have to choose which game to attend in person?  Done (re Iowa state and Georgia). How does the current division of two stints at Cornell and Carlisle work for everyone? Rybkovich (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to Carlisle: Non-experts probably won't know what Pitt is at the end. It might also be confusing because the next section is titled Pittsburgh. I'd recommend stretching it out to Pittsburgh here. Done
  • Pittsburgh: Since the reader isn't going to hear about the Naval Reserves loss/controversy for another few paragraphs, perhaps that part should be omitted from the first paragraph here to avoid possible confusion. Done

That's all for now. I'll try to come back and read the rest in the near-future, although I'm usually busy in real life and can't offer any promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stanford: "coached by Knute Rockne. Rockne...". Try not to have a name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as that isn't great prose. In this instance, you could try saying, "Like Warner, Rockne...", which would create some space between the identical names.
  • "including 1932 Warner's last season at Stanford." Comma needed after the year.
  • Coaching legacy: Another "Today" here; consider mentioning the year in question in the last sentence.
  • Innovation: From my experience at FAC, many of the regular reviewers sometimes don't care for list-like elements when they could be summarized in writing. I fear that the list of innovations here will attract criticism for that reason. See if you can summarize this useful content in prose.
I would disagree with the an official reviewer if that was raised. The section at hand is a reference section, like a column with wins and losses or something like that. It is for quick info access. Some key info will not be obtained because the reader can skip the paragraph and miss the info without her knowledge. Rybkovich (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: As the coaching record table currently appears to lack a reference, I'd recommend adding cites to the NCAA and College Football Data Warehouse records mentioned here, as they will provide citations for the table at the same time as verifying the note itself.
  • The all caps in the title of reference 8 should be toned down. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- This has been open two months without achieving any clear support for promotion, and there's been no activity for three weeks, so I'm going to archive it; you can re-nominate after two weeks, assuming all outstanding points above have been actioned. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2016 [21].

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

[edit]
Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) and Boghog (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WT:WikiProject Medicine, WT:WikiProject Pharmacology, WT:WikiProject Chemicals, WT:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, and User talk:John.

This article is about a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement that is a natural product in humans and has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition.

This is the second pharmacology article that I've worked on for FA status. My first pharmacology FA was amphetamine, so this article's layout and formatting mirror that article. Like amphetamine, this article includes citations in the lead. I will not remove these because many of these statements are medical claims; however, I'm amenable to moving the citations into a note at the end of each paragraph as was done in the lead of amphetamine if reviewers of this nomination prefer this approach.

The labels in the section headers and their organization in the article follows MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. The sources used to cite medical claims in this article are required to satisfy WP:MEDRS; most, if not all, of the WP:PAYWALLED medical reviews that are currently cited in the article are and will be temprorarily available in this link for viewing/downloading to allow reviewers to conduct WP:V checks for the duration of this nomination and any subsequent FAC nominations. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">) defined in the source code of the HMB article.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog, John, Nergaal, and Axl: I'm pinging you to notify you that this article has been renominated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due to recent change to Wikipedia's formatting/settings, I no longer find it convenient to edit (or even view) Wikipedia. Sorry. (See here for details.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mirokado

[edit]

I probably won't be able to do a full review of this, but I would like to comment that I think the ref callouts in the lead are fine as you have them: collecting them at the end of each paragraph would mean a lot of effort for each reader to decide which ref supported which statement. --Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doc James

[edit]

Not yet The lead is simply too complicated. This article is not written for a general audience, not even the lead. Additionally we see very large quotes remaining in the reference section. These need to be shortened significantly. Happy to see references remain in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I don't really have a clue as to what you think is too complicated, so can you make some edits or propose some changes so that I can follow up and address this? I'll work on pruning some of the quotes sometime this coming week. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a suggestion for the first sentence of the lead that is drop dead simple:
  • β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid (HMB), also known as β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (hydroxymethylbutyrate, HMB), is a substance naturally produced in humans that is also used as nutritional supplement.
Some of the remaining details in the lead (e.g., mechanism) could also be shortened and simplified. I will work on this once I have a spare moment. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made edits to the lead sentence per your suggestion (special:diff/745972720/746194240). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Boghog: Do you think the following highlighted clause should be deleted?

HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis and inhibiting muscle protein breakdown through various mechanisms, including activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles.

It's the most technical statement in the lead. I only added it to give credence to the preceding clause in that sentence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I'm going to prune any lengthy reference quotes that make statements that are unrelated to the compound's pharmacology a little later today. Would it be alright with you if I left in the reference quotes that cover some of the more involved pharmacological information until after someone does a review of the pharmacology section? I think it would make it a lot easier on a pharmacology/molecular biology reviewer if those quotes are left in until after they've finished doing their review. I've made a request at WT:PHARM and WT:MCB for someone to take on a review of this section to try to attract a reviewer for this section since that's the only part of the article that hasn't been thoroughly reviewed by someone with a relevant background. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure sounds good. Ping me when you are done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I've censored and/or deleted parts of several reference quotes: Special:diff/746211222/746327967.
Based upon the text in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Medical which is cited by the current reference #16, what sentences do you think should be pruned from its quote? I can't really decide. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We want the quote to be enough to guide those looking at it to were in the source the content is supported. We do not want the quotes to be a replacement for the source and that is what might cause us problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[22] How's that? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Are you ok with the current reference quotes that don't include any pharmacology information? I'm going to censor most of the pharmacology-related paragraph-long quotes after that section is reviewed. I intend to censor most of the pharmacology-related statements in the reference quotes that currently contain both medical claims and pharmacology-related statements after the pharmacology section is reviewed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Moved from Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid § In the body
In the body
[edit]

This IMO is overly detailed for the lead

"HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis and inhibiting muscle protein breakdown through various mechanisms, including activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the quotes and often the quote provided supports one of the uses of the ref. Wondering User:Seppi what you think of moving them to comments behind the ref in question like this [23]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see with that is some unknowing editor could come along, see the commented text, think it should be in the article and then uncomment it. This would introduce unattributed quotes to the article text. Sizeofint (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does say "Quote = "In conclusion, HMB treatment clearly appears to be a safe potent strategy against sarcopenia, and more generally against muscle wasting, because HMB improves muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance."" I have not seen people generally uncomment text but yes something one would need to keep an eye on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that you kept the quote parameter. That might mitigate the issue slightly, although if the stewardship of this article changes in the future editors still may be unaware of the purpose of the the commented material. Sizeofint (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I'm okay with doing this as long as the censored quote isn't removed from the reference quote, since that lets me and others know which ref a censored quote comes from.
I'm fine with most of the changes that you made, but I made a few edits to clarify some of the existing text (Special:diff/746406984/746497057). I tried to use simple language when making these revisions, but if you think one of the statements that I added or modified in my edits needs further simplification, just let me know and I'll work on it with you.
Also, I added the more technical pharmacodynamics statement that you deleted to a note at the end of a simplified sentence in the lead that describes how it works/affects skeletal muscle. Are you okay with that? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is simplier thanks "HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating the production of proteins and inhibiting the breakdown of proteins in muscle tissue."
Rather than putting the more complicated details in a note that says "HMB has been shown to stimulate myofibrillarmuscle protein synthesis and inhibit muscle protein breakdown in humans through various mechanisms, including activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles.[8][14][15]" this should just be dealt with in the body of the text IMO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I deleted the note. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Are you satisfied with the article lead and the citation quotes (specifically, the ones that don't cover pharmacology-related information) now, or is there something else you'd like me to work on? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Number of refs
[edit]

Looking at this text "Supplemental HMB is also used by athletes to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce exercise-induced skeletal muscle damage, and speed recovery from high-intensity exercise.[2][8][11][12][13]"

The quote supplied in this ref "Molecular Aspects of Medicine 2016 review" however does not support that text? It supports the text in the previous sentence. Do all 5 of those references support the statement in question? Can simply the best one or two be used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quote doesn't, but the ref does: [24]. See section 6.3. I don't normally generalize statements or make inferences from references when I write article content, but I'll double-check that the other refs directly support at least part of that statement when I get home. I'm editing on my phone at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the body, it looks like refs 2, 11, and 13 independently support most or all 5 of the claims in that sentence. IIRC, ref 2 supports the entire sentence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice if there was the ability to have a quote in each <ref name="Ref2010"/> so one could have a different quote associated with each sentence the ref is used for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Sorry for not following up sooner. I'd be okay with using repeated citations to the same reference with a different quote, but I thought you wanted me to cut down the total amount of quoted text. Are you saying you'd be okay with using a relatively long quote of like 6-8 sentences if that's broken up into 3 citations which contain 2-3 sentences of the original quote and cite different statements in the article text? Or, did you just mean I should do something like this with the current quotations? I'm going to try to keep the quotes to a 3 sentence limit, but some references contain a number of significant medical claims about treatment effects that are spread over multiple sentences; e.g., reference 10 has an 8 sentence quote that independently and directly supports every claim made in each of the 6 sentences that it cites in this article; none of the 8 sentences in that quote are superfluous since every one of them supports at least part of a sentence in the article.
As for your question about the references that cite the performance-enhancing effects sentence:
  1. the current reference #2 supports all of the claims in the performance-enhancement sentence in the quoted portion of the abstract in its abstract and the body of the article (in the event you decide to read this ref, it's worth noting that it uses the abbreviation FFM, for "fat free mass", when discussing the effects on lean body mass); the body of that citation elaborates on each of those claims covered in the abstract in more detail. It also mentions a few other performance-enhancing effects that were reported in a handful of studies; I chose not to include those in the article text. This is the most comprehensive reference on HMB's performance-enhancing effects.
  2. as I mentioned earlier in this thread, section 6.3 in the current ref #8 supports several of the claims in the performance-enhancement sentence.
  3. the current ref #9 (this ref cites the text in the body, but not the lead) supports a few of the claims in the sentence; it states: Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbuty- rate (HMB) is a metabolite of the branched-chain amino acid leucine (Nissen & Abumrad, 1997), which has been investigated due to its potential role in improving muscle quality. Multiple studies have explored mechanisms that link HMB to muscle loss; it has been suggested that HMB can enhance protein synthesis via upregulation of anabolic signaling pathways and attenuate proteolysis via downregulation of catabolic signaling pathways (Hasselgren, 2014). Likewise, population surveys and clinical studies suggest that HMB treatment decreased muscle proteolysis (Baier et al., 2009) and muscle damage and increased fat-free mass gain both in young and older adults (Molfino, Gioia, Rossi Fanelli, & Muscaritoli, 2013). Indeed, HMB has been extensively used as an ergogenic aid, especially among bodybuilders and power athletes, who use it to promote exercise performance and skeletal muscle hypertrophy (Wilson et al., 2013a). However, not all studies have found beneficial effects of HMB supplementation.
  4. the current reference #11 also independently supports most of the claims in that sentence: Despite differences in these studies, it does appear that HMB overall enhances muscular hypertrophy, strength, and power. In fact, the International Society for Sports Nutrition, in a position statement, writes that HMB can be used to enhance recovery by reducing skeletal muscle damage after exercise in athletically trained and untrained people. The utility of HMB does seem to be affected by timing of intake prior to workouts and dosage [97].
  5. the current reference #12 supports several claims made in that sentence, including some claims that I didn't include in the article (e.g., endurance) HMB supplementation has shown to greatly influence the body strength and composition and also prevent muscle injury during exercise and improve muscle endurance. ... It can be concluded that creatine and HMB have clearly shown to exhibit ergogenic properties; as results from a meta-analysis mentioned before support their application in sports and exercise. In the table and in several sentences of that reference, it points out that HMB induces increases in lean body mass in the general population; it also noted in one sentence that a subset of studies which used a sample of well-conditioned resistance-trained athletes reported no significant effect on lean mass.
I deleted 1 of the references supporting the lead sentence since it was outside WP:MEDDATE (published in 2010) and wasn't really necessary since the other 4 citations were adequate. I suppose ref #8 could come out if you think 4 refs is still too much for 5 medical claims. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will look further in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I just noticed this morning that the article no longer conformed to MOS:ABBR's requirement that all abbreviated terms be written out in full on their first instance. Since the Medical and Enhancing performance sections both include the HMB-CA and/or HMB-FA abbreviations which are covered in the Available forms section, I needed to move the Available forms section to the top of the Uses section. I did so in this edit. Are you okay with that, or would you prefer that we re-add the sentence on the free acid and conjugate base to the lead?
The lead sentence originally was: HMB is sold worldwide as a dietary supplement in the free acid form (HMB-FA) and as a monohydrated calcium salt of the conjugate base, calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate (HMB-Ca), at a cost of about US$30–50 per month when taking 3 grams per day.
It currently is: HMB is sold worldwide as a dietary supplement at a cost of about US$30–50 per month when taking 3 grams per day. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One could put the abbreviations in the infobox which would cover you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wording
[edit]

Wondering if "An NCAA study from 2006 found that 1.9% of college student athletes used HMB as a dietary supplement" would be better as "In 2006 about 1.9% of college student athletes in the United States used HMB as a dietary supplement" as I imagine the data is US centric. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I updated the wording in the article to reflect your proposal a while back but apparently forgot to mention it here. Are you satisfied with the article as is? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Is there anything else you'd like me to address, or do you believe that the article is FA-quality now? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported?
[edit]

We have this sentence "Supplemental HMB inhibits the loss of lean body mass in muscle wasting conditions, particularly in individuals with muscle lose with age or during bed rest. It is often used in addition to resistance exercise." supported by

  • [25] which says "Deutz et al. (2013) did not report any effect of HMB on muscle strength after 10 days of bed rest in the elderly (men and women) but showed a clear tendency to limit the decrease observed; the latter result did not reach statistical significance probably due to the small sample size."
  • [26] which says "may be useful in the prevention of muscle atrophy induced by bed rest" The meta analysis from 2015 on HMB has 147 treatment and 140 control older adults only. The number looking at bed rest was 24 of which 19 finished (that is 11 and 8)
  • [27] doesn't mention bed rest in relation to HMB.

If one is dealing with something as common as muscle loss with aging it concerns me some that we are making such definitive statements based on so little data. I would call the evidence poor for "during bed rest" and tentative for aging.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources (I just picked the first three that came up on pubmed)

  • [28] 2016 systematic review finds mixed results "For proteins, a combination therapy of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB), arginine, and glutamine showed an increase in lean body mass after 4 weeks in a study of advanced solid tumour patients, whereas the same combination did not show a benefit on lean body mass in a large sample of advanced lung and other cancer patients after 8 weeks. In summary, the effect of the combination of HMB, arginine, and glutamine on weight gain should be investigated in further studies on cancer patients investigating time periods of several months."
  • [29] 2015 systematic review "The HMB studies are suggestive of a beneficial effect on older adults, but larger well-controlled studies are required that measure outcomes relevant to sarcopenia, ideally in sarcopenic populations." (as most trials were in healthy people) -> when an article uses the term "may" it can equally mean "may not"
  • [30] "Methodology and quality of studies were too varied to draw any firm conclusion. ... High-quality research is required in critical care before treatment recommendations can be made."

The three most recent sources are much less supportive than our article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This general reviews from 2014 on Sarcopenia in older people states "Two other dietary supplements have been noted as having a positive effect on muscle mass and strength, especially when combined with exercise, but are subjected to further research. Creatine is a major component of muscle stores, and studies have suggested that creatine supplementation may increase the concentration of creatine in skeletal muscle, promoting an increase in strength and mass.111–113 Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate ([beta]-HMB) is a metabolite of the EAA leucine, and early studies suggest that it might potentially increase muscle mass, as well as reduce muscle breakdown.114" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Hmm. It was originally written into the article as "appears to be useful during bed rest", which I think was closer in line with the source. I'm guessing that I must've just unwittingly revised the statement since then to make the statement on potential uses more concise (assuming I'm to blame for that edit). I agree that the language should only be tentative when referring to bed rest. I've revised the statement accordingly: Special:diff/753806329/754135420. Thank you for catching this!
Out of curiosity, what search terms/filters did you use to find these papers? I've been using the title and synonyms link with MEDRS-filters in the {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} template on the talk page, which only provides these results: [31]. I probably need to expand the synonyms to show the expanded set of results that you found.
FWIW, since I'm assuming you don't have access to the paper, the conclusion of the ref in the 6th bullet above is Dietary manipulation with leucine enriched EAA, HMB or creatine warrants further investigation in the critically ill and may offer a supportive strategy towards minimising muscle mass loss in these vulnerable patients. Variability in quality and methodology of current evidence does not allow for formulation of any clinical recommendations. Studies in other muscle wasting illnesses with similarities to critical illness suggest that EAA mixtures may have a beneficial effect on lean body mass; however, the data for function and strength are less clear.
I also recently found a July 2016 review in the past week (currently linked to on the talk page, to be added to the article) which also called for longer trials with HMB. In summary, the effect of the combination of HMB, arginine, and glutamine on weight gain should be investigated in further studies on cancer patients investigating time periods of several months.
[W.r.t. cancer cachexia] In any event, would you like to incorporate these reviews on HMB for cancer cachexia into the article? Currently, the article does not state that there is clear efficacy for reversing muscle wasting from cancer cachexia; it simply states that there is "emerging evidence" supporting its use for this purpose. I believe that this language is consistent with what the above reviews state (i.e., not definitive, but promising evidence of efficacy); however, do you feel that this statement should also be revised?
[W.r.t. critical care] Also, since the article doesn't currently make any statements about the use of HMB in a critical care setting, would you like me to add something on that? You covered this when citing the reference in the 6th bullet above.
[W.r.t. sarcopenia] At the moment, the main citation supporting statements about its efficacy for sarcopenia is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Would you like me to also include the reviews above that did not conduct a meta-analysis of trials? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I've revised what I wrote about bed rest a little further in this edit. As of this moment, the only statement in the article w.r.t. bed rest is: HMB supplementation may also prevent muscle atrophy during bed rest, but more research is needed to determine its efficacy for this purpose. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have adjusted to make it more tentative[32] to fit the small amount of evidence avaliable on this topic. Thoughts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the lead on the efficacy for sarcopenia is summarizing the following statements in the body:

Based upon a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials that was published in 2015, HMB supplementation can preserve lean muscle mass in older adults.[note 1][1] HMB does not appear to significantly affect fat mass in older adults.[1] As of 2015, more research is needed to determine the precise effects on muscle strength and function in this age group.[1]

We need to phrase the lead sentence which summarizes that text in a manner that is consistent with the body. Similarly, CFCF changed the sentence about the uses of HMB for aids/wound healing/etc to a statement about the efficacy of HMB for those things; statements about efficacy are not supported by the references, nor are these references suitable to cite a statement about efficacy per MEDRS. That lead sentence is summarizing the following text in the body:

Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods that are used for providing nutritional support under the care of a doctor in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer, to promote wound healing following surgery or injury, or when otherwise recommended by a medical professional.

For now, I've reverted those 2 sentences to the version prior to CFCF's revisions; we need to make both the lead and body consistent with each other and with the cited references when changing these, or there will be problems with MOS:LEAD and WP:V respectively. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HMB is believed to produce these effects in part by stimulating the production of proteins and inhibiting the breakdown of proteins in muscle tissue. - you replaced "produces" with the bolded phrase in this sentence. The third cited source is a primary source which literally demonstrated this effect in biopsied human skeletal muscle in a study conducted on living humans; that primary source is cited by and covered in the 2nd source which cites that sentence, which is a review. Why did you change this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break
[edit]
@Doc James: I forgot to ping you when I responded yesterday. Anyway, I'm open to revising the statements that you modified; I don't mind if you be bold and modify these yourself, but please pay attention to what the cited sources say when doing so. A number of the edits that you made yesterday introduced verifiability issues. However, as mentioned above, CFCF's recent edits had already introduced a WP:V issue in the sentence on the marketed uses for HMB-containing products, before you further edited it. That sentence cannot discuss efficacy due to the fact that the sources are not MEDRS compliant.

I think it would be best to discuss how to phrase the other sentences that you modified in the lead, as well as the corresponding sentences in the body, in this section before modifying the statements in the article. I've made an attempt to modify some of these sentences as noted in the points below.

  • In this edit, I added coverage of the review on cancer cachexia that you linked in one of the bullet points above. The clinical trial which this review referred to in the statement you quoted is the same trial that was already covered in the article. I added the reference to the statement about the trial and added a sentence explicitly stating that more research is needed for determining treatment efficacy for cancer cachexia - both systematic reviews support that statement.
    Note: I further revised the sentence about more research being needed in this edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Athletes use supplemental HMB in the hope of increasing gains in... - the underlined phrase in the preceding clause isn't directly supported by its references because they do not discuss the reasons that motivate healthy individuals to use HMB; they only discuss efficacy in clinical trials, so we should only be discussing efficacy in this sentence if we cite the current references.
  • I don't understand why you changed "HMB produces these effects..." to "HMB is believed to produce these effects..." in this edit. If there's a reason to make this change in the lead, we should also change the relevant statement in the body, which is currently: HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis and inhibiting muscle protein breakdown through various mechanisms, including activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles.
  • Lastly, do you want me to cover the research involving HMB in critically ill patients from the review you linked (PMID 24807079) or add material from the review you linked on sarcopenia (PMID 25923603)?

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with "Certain medical foods claim it lessens muscle wasting in cancer and HIV/AIDS and promotes wound healing."? The source are claims from the manufacturer. We should call them claims. One reference supported the whole thing, why add 4?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound definitive "HMB inhibits the loss of lean body mass in individuals experiencing age-related muscle loss." The evidence is not there to make such a strong claim and ignores the reviews I provided above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: you only provided one review on sarcopenia; the other 2 are about critically ill patients and cancer cachexia. I've added the cachexia review already, as previously noted. WP:MEDRS states "The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).". Systematic reviews that do not use meta-analytic statistics to aggregate study results are like RCTs that report the treatment outcomes for each patient individually, without conducting any statistical analysis. Meta-analysis is a way of aggregating the results of multiple studies into one aggregate quantitative measure of effect size, exactly analogous to how regression analysis is used to aggregate the results from multiple individuals into one aggregate quantitative measure of effect size.
With that in mind, if you really want me to state the number of medical reviews of individual trials that conclude that there's efficacy, then state there's a dissenting review of individual trials, and then state that the only meta-analysis of all trials concluded that there is efficacy for sarcopenia with such-and-such effect size, I'll do that despite the fact that we're giving undue weight to literature reviews over the only systematic review that conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trials.
As for the statement about medical foods, the sentence you wrote isn't suitable as is because food doesn't make medical claims. The intent behind this sentence was to answer the questions "in the real world, what do doctors currently use HMB-containing medical foods for?" - not "what do manufacturers claim that HMB-containing products have efficacy for?" These two questions have the same answer simply because what a medical food is marketed for IS what it's used for; however, when we discuss efficacy in the body, we do not cite manufacturer claims - we cite medical reviews of RCTs which assert that more evidence is needed to adequately establish efficacy for some of those uses. Most importantly, as I've stated twice before, claims about treatment efficacy made by anyone - even the manufacturer - are medical claims. Since the references for that sentence aren't MEDRS compliant, we can't use those sources to cite the sentence that you wrote.
@Jytdog: Do you have any thoughts on this? Covering the medical uses like this was your idea after all. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: How do you want me to proceed? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the sentence "provide nutritional support" agree it is not a medical claim. In fact it basically has no meaning (it is more or less a marketing statement that sounds good to get by the FDA regulations). Any food can also be said to provide nutritional support. We should simply remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These were the first three reviews on pubmed

  • [33] 2016 systematic review finds mixed results "For proteins, a combination therapy of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB), arginine, and glutamine showed an increase in lean body mass after 4 weeks in a study of advanced solid tumour patients, whereas the same combination did not show a benefit on lean body mass in a large sample of advanced lung and other cancer patients after 8 weeks. In summary, the effect of the combination of HMB, arginine, and glutamine on weight gain should be investigated in further studies on cancer patients investigating time periods of several months." Agree it is just looking at cancer. Yet is this about cancer but provides more useful info than the current statement about cancer in the lead.
  • [34] 2015 systematic review "The HMB studies are suggestive of a beneficial effect on older adults, but larger well-controlled studies are required that measure outcomes relevant to sarcopenia, ideally in sarcopenic populations." (as most trials were in healthy people) -> when an article uses the term "may" it can equally mean "may not" Looking at the three refs you have provided, they state that HMB prevents I am not seeing where they state treat sarcopenea.
  • [35] "Methodology and quality of studies were too varied to draw any firm conclusion. ... High-quality research is required in critical care before treatment recommendations can be made." Yes this one was in critical care.

I think what we have would support "HMB may inhibit the loss of lean body mass as individuals age." Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Wu H, Xia Y, Jiang J, Du H, Guo X, Liu X, Li C, Huang G, Niu K (September 2015). "Effect of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate supplementation on muscle loss in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 61 (2): 168–175. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2015.06.020. PMID 26169182. CONCLUSION: Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate supplementation contributed to preservation of muscle mass in older adults. HMB supplementation may be useful in the prevention of muscle atrophy induced by bed rest or other factors. Further studies are needed to determine the precise effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function in older adults. ... Mechanisms underlying the role of HMB in muscle regeneration have also been explored: results indicated that HMB enhances protein synthesis via upregulation of anabolic signaling pathways and attenuate proteolysis via downregulation of catabolic signaling pathways (Wilkinson et al., 2013).
  1. ^ The estimated standard mean difference effect size for the increase in muscle mass in the HMB treatment groups relative to controls was 0.352 kilograms (0.78 lb) with a 95% confidence interval of 0.11–0.594 kilograms (0.24–1.31 lb).[1] The seven randomized controlled trials that were included in the meta-analysis contained a total of 147 older adults in the HMB treatment groups and 140 older adults in the control groups.[1] The studies had durations of 2–12 months and the majority lasted 2–3 months.[1]
Arbitrary section break2
[edit]

The review you are using comes to three sentences of conclusions

"HMB contributed to preservation of muscle mass in older adults." which says it help keep mm mass, does not comment on those with sarcopenea.

"HMB supplementation may be useful in the prevention of muscle atrophy induced by bed rest or other factors." A decrease of uncertainty

"Further studies are needed to determine the precise effects of HMB on muscle strength and physical function in older adults." Means it is unclear if HMB affects str or function. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO before we should be uneqivacally recommending this stuff in WP's voice I would like to see (1) government sources supporting benefit (2) specific reviews supporting benefit (which we have some of) and (3) general reviews supporting benefit. I do not see us as having either 1 or 3. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2017 general review on sarcopinea says "A recent meta-analysis revealed some benefit of using a combined approach of dietary supplements and exercise, but the findings were inconsistent among various populations." PMID:27886695
Based on this 2015 review [36] "The main message is that enhanced benefits of exercise training, when combined with dietary supplementation, have been shown in some trials – indicating potential for future interventions, but that existing evidence is inconsistent." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence above
[edit]

This sentence is supported by three references "It is added to certain medical foods to help provide nutritional support for people with muscle wasting due to cancer or HIV/AIDS and to promote wound healing."

The first refs [37][38] do not make that claim? Does not mention cancer.

The second ref appears to be a conference invite[39] Not a realiable medical source. Does not mention cancer.

The third ref is a news peice[40] also not a sufficient medical support. Does not mention cancer.

I am unable to find in any of the four sources the mention of cancer?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog and Doc James: This sentence isn't stating or intended to suggest that HMB has efficacy for these conditions; it's intended to state its uses on the basis of what medical conditions that HMB-based medical products (specifically Juven and Ensure) are marketed to doctors/patients for in order to help to provide "nutritional support" while being used under the supervision of a doctor (@Jytdog: please correct me if I'm wrong about this). Jytdog and I decided on that wording during the first FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1#Comments_by_Jytdog) for describing its current medical uses.
In any event, I'm open to revising the wording. A statement about what HMB is marketed for doesn't require MEDRS because it's not a medical claim; it's a business-related marketing claim. In any event, I suppose we could use a MEDRS source to support a statement about what Juven and Ensure are marketed for if we can find one, although I'm not aware of one at the moment. How do you and Jytdog propose that we modify the language so that it's agreeable to everyone?
Also, w.r.t. cancer, Jytdog provided this reference [41] about the marketing of Juven for cancer-related nutritional support during the first FAC; I forgot to add that to support that part of the sentence. I'll add this reference in for now to address that issue, but we still need to iron out the wording so that the statement is acceptable to everyone. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The medical food stuff is very hard to write about with our usual standards. The FDA lets people market medical food if they have good studies showing that nutritional support with X for Y actually helps Y and that there is some underlying biological mechanism that makes sense of that. That's it. We do need to be careful not to make efficacy claims in this context without good sources for that. so this is use not efficacy. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the missing ref in this edit: Special:diff/754135420/754140460. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news peice[42] does not mention HMB? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the quote for that citation in the HMB article. It mentions Juven = HMB + other amino acids. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Safety
[edit]

Safety is tentatively established in people who are otherwise healthy. The evidence is not enough to state it is well established. With respect to side effects one would imagine it would be toxic to people with maple syrup urine disease and possibly alcoholics and others with liver failure who have trouble handling a high protein load. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safety is tentatively established in people who are otherwise healthy. The evidence is not enough to state it is well established. - what review do you have in mind for using to cite this statement? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Nevermind, I think that the language you used to describe safety in your recent revision is fine. Since you edited that statement in the article, is this no longer an issue? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting statement "although no studies have tested HMB toxicity in humans" from a 2016 review[43] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John

[edit]

I still oppose on prose; there are three instances of "United States and/or internationally", which is very clumsy and does not belong in a FA. There will be other infelicities as well. I will take a proper look later today, but I am not pleased that this sort of thing has not yet been addressed. --John (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to athletic organization bans, the reason that those two sentences were written in that manner is that the phrase "in the United States and internationally" is the absolute most that could be attributed directly to the refs; the United States was the only country which the refs mentioned when discussing national athletic organizations that have not banned HMB use in competitive sports. However, since you feel that the sentences are really poorly worded, I've revised it to a statement that could be potentially be inferred from the refs: As of 2015, HMB has not been banned by the NCAA, WADA, or any other prominent national or international athletic organization. It should be noted that none of the refs state that no national organization outside the US has banned HMB; however, given that no national organization with an HMB ban has been reported in any of the refs and given the blanket statements about the lack of a ban internationally, I figure it's not really a stretch to make this inference.
As for the third clause, "HMB is available in the United States and internationally...", I've deleted it and made it consistent with the wording used in the lead ("HMB is sold worldwide...").
These edits are the changes that I made. If you'd prefer that these sentences be phrased differently, please let me know or feel free to change them yourself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I'm working with Doc James to simplify the lead at the moment, so if you've got time to go through the prose this week, it'd probably be best to start on the body first and then go through the lead once you've finished reviewing that part. On a related note, did my edits in this diff address the concerns that you noted above? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I think the lead has been simplified to Doc James' satisfaction, based upon our dialogue on the article talk page. Feel free to review the lead at your leisure. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: There's only about 2 weeks left before this nomination closes. Are you still willing/interested to do a prose review for this FAC? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look. I am sorry I have been so slow to get going on this, I have been busy in my day job. One other reason I have been slow to take this up is that I had some concerns about NPOV and promotional tone the last time round and I have not yet looked to see if they have been addressed. When I looked in late October it was still failing for me. If this is still the case it will need more than a prose copyedit. I'll see when I take a look, I guess. --John (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I remember that you mentioned something about that, but I'm not aware of what particular portions of the text that you see issues with. Can you clarify? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Graeme Bartlett

[edit]

I am going to go through this with a fine tooth comb looking for misspelling, funny characters, nonstandard use, and referencing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Firstly there are three uses of "∼" instead of "~". The first fails to render on my terminal, showing as a hollow rectangle, So this should be changed to "~".
  2. † is explained in note 8, but perhaps the explanation could be placed directly under the "Abnormal HMB concentrations measured in disease states" table.
    adding the explanation in the bottom cell as you suggest is a good idea. I like that.
  3. There do seem to be a lot of unneeded quotes in the references. Some of this such as ref1 also include footnote numbers. But are they foot notes from this article, or the ereferece? If the latter I think we should remove them as adding to confusion.
    Replacing quoted footnotes with ... is certainly better than having them there. Though I think they can be safely omitted too.
  4. Should "a-KIC" read "α-KIC"?
  5. We should be using full journal titles rather than abbreviations
    I feel strongly about this, as although specialists will know what those journal titles mean, other academics or average readers will not know. Putting the full title will make that clear, and easier to look up in a library catalog. First use of journal names can also be linked to the article about the journal.
  6. Despite the title being "beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid", this is never used in the body of the text at all, instead it switches to using β. This is a bit inconsistent.
  7. Some sources use "β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyric acid" with an extra "-" before the second "β".
  8. calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate is mentioned as abbreviating to "HMB-Ca", but references call this "CaHMB" or "Ca-HMB", so those two could be listed in parenthesis too.
  9. Do people really use units like "μmol/mmol" for ratios?
  10. In the Wilkinson DJ, Hossain T, quote there is non-formatted ml−1 which is weird without superscript. However I think the quoting is not needed.


@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for taking on a review of this nomination! I really appreciate it.
I changed your bulleted list to a numbered list so that I could respond to each item in a more straightforward manner. I hope that this is okay with you. If not, feel free to convert the list back to a bulleted one.
  1. I've replaced all the instances of the former tilde ("∼") with the latter ("~"), per your justification. Diff of changes.
  2. Do you mean that it should be placed in a table cell that acts like a footer, analogous to the bottom table cell in Fluoxetine#Pharmacology where the explanation of the meaning of the tan-colored cells is placed? I could do that pretty easily if that's what you had in mind; just let me know.
    I've moved the content from the note to a table footer cell. This is what the table looks like now: Special:Permalink/747877200#Detection in body fluids. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As I noted above in Doc James' section, most of the references are going to be pruned down once someone reviews the pharmacology-related article content; the pharmacology content is very technical and involved, so I figure that even someone who is knowledgeable in pharmacology and/or molecular and cell biology will benefit a lot if all of the relevant statements and contextual information from the cited references that supports the pharmacology-related article content are clearly indicated within the quote parameter. Once this content has been reviewed, the lengthy citation quotes that contain pharmacology-related information will be censored – this includes all but 1 citation that currently includes a quote of more than 3 sentences.

    In regard to the citation footnotes within quotations (e.g., the superscripted numbers in the quote of the article's 1st reference), those refer to the citations that are cited by the quoted reference, not the references cited in this article. I could omit those footnotes from the quote; however, in order to keep the quotations correctly formatted and ensure that they conform to MOS:QUOTE and MOS:ELLIPSIS, I'd have to replace almost every quoted footnote with a nonbreaking space followed by an ellipsis (i.e., &nbsp;... - this renders as " ..."). If one of the quotes ends at a footnote, then I wouldn't have to follow this convention; but, whenever a quote continues past the footnote, I'd need to make this replacement since I'd be omitting material from the quoted text (MOS:QUOTE states "Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text). Would you prefer that I replace the footnotes with ellipses?
    Alright, I'll go through and replace footnotes within quotations with ellipses where appropriate sometime tonight or tomorrow and follow up here when I'm done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the superscripted references in all reference quotes. Diff of changes. Did you want me to do the same with bracketed (e.g., a quote like "Random statement.[4]") and unbracketed, non-superscripted references (e.g., a quote like "Random statement.4")?
    • As an alternative to removing all of the superscripted (and possibly all other) references cited within the quoted references, would you be alright with me including references within quotes if all of them are hyperlinked to the article which the reference cited? That should remove any confusion for the reader about what source a quoted reference refers to (important to you) and indicate to the reader that a particular statement is supported by evidence (important to me). I prefer this solution; however, if you don't think this is a suitable compromise, I'm still willing to remove all other quoted references. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In the article text, all abbreviated terms that refer to alpha-ketoisocaproate should be written as "α-KIC" instead of "a-KIC" for consistency and compliance with MOS:ABBR. In the citation quotes and elsewhere, this need not be the case since the use of "α-KIC" vs "a-KIC" is merely a matter of the author's personal preference.
    I've replaced "a-KIC" with "[α-KIC]" in the quotes since this is an appropriate substitution and conforms to MOS:BRACKET. Diff of changes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't mind converting the journal titles to the full title format, although the current references are all consistent with Pubmed's abbreviated journal title format at the moment. The only reason that I chose to use the abbreviated format is that it's currently pubmed's standardized format for journal titles (e.g., this pubmed abstract lists "Pharmacol Res." instead of "Pharmacological research" as the journal title and this pubmed abstract lists "J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr" instead of "Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition" as the journal title). If you feel strongly about using the full title instead of the abbreviated format, I am willing to change this though. Just let me know if so.
    Okay, I'll convert the journal titles from the abbreviated format to the full format tomorrow. I'll follow up here when I'm done. Addressed by Boghog. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC); Updated 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The main reason why I'm inclined to use the expanded term "beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid" in the title is that most keyboards containing the English alphabet don't include a key for β and I imagine that most people don't know how to produce that character using keyboard shortcuts. Consequently, most readers on the English Wikipedia would probably find it difficult to write out and search for an article titled "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid". Since the lowercase Greek beta is a very common symbol, I imagine that almost everyone who arrives at the article knows what it means; consequently, I don't think that "β" ≝ "lowercase beta" needs to be stated in the article either. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly about changing the title or article text so that they're consistent, I'm open to changing the article to address this issue though.
  7. I'm aware of this. Most sources that mention HMB discuss the conjugate base and some of those include a hyphen (this is written as "β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate"); some sources also omit the hyphen when referring to the acid and/or base. There isn't a "correct" format for hyphenating the term and the use of a hyphen there really only depends upon the author's personal preference.
  8. HMB-Ca, CaHMB, and Ca-HMB aren't really that notable as alternative names of "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate"; all three are just unofficial/nonstandardized abbreviations which various authors used as shorter synonyms to refer to the compound in their publications. The only reason any of those is included in our article is that "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" is an excessively long term and, like the authors who used those abbreviations, I needed a shorter way to refer to that compound, especially in the drugbox. I'm not opposed to using CaHMB or Ca-HMB in the article, but I'd prefer to only list 1 of the 3 terms because they're just abbreviations. Since "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" has other more notable alternate names besides those abbreviations, I think that listing only the abbreviations without mentioning any of the other alt names would be problematic.
  9. "μmol/mmol creatinine" is a standardized unit for urinary concentrations in the Human Metabolome Database; this entry in that database cited those units and the rest of the associated row entries in that table. Based upon a quick search of that term in quotes on google scholar [44] (970 results) and google search [45] (5600 results), "μmol/mmol creatinine" appears to be a fairly common unit of measurement in other publications for referring to the concentration of a substance in urine as well.
  10. Thanks for catching this. I've superscripted the −1 in both places where it was used in the quote: diff of changes. As mentioned above, I intend to censor that quote once the pharmacology section is reviewed by an editor from WP:PHARM or WP:MCB.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I have indented some of my responses above, as well as introducing a couple of other things below. I have struck off my points that are addressed satisfactorily. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11. The history section fails to say who discovered or first made the acid. From references I can see it was made in 1958, but the article does not tell us.

12. If any of the authors of references are notable then author-link can be used to give them a blue link. (I have not check that yet to see if there are any) (I will check references carefully for fullness and correctness later) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  2.  Done Full journal names are now used throughout. Boghog (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thanks for suggestion for expanding the history section. I cannot find any secondary sources that specifically state who first discovered or made this substance, but the earliest HMB synthetic citation in Reaxys which is based on the Beilstein database is to a paper in 1877 by Alexander Zaytsev. I have added that citation to the article as well as later citations to what appears the first isolation from a natural source in 1941 and the first isolation as a human metabolite in 1968 (also from Reaxys searches). (When it comes to early organic chemistry, if it is not listed in Beilstein, it probably never happened.) I hope this is sufficient.
  5. I have added author-links to Alexander Zaytsev and Leopold Ružička in two citations. Boghog (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Boghog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for not following up sooner; I've been busier than expected off-wiki during the past few days. I should have some time tomorrow to make the changes that I indicated above though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for my long-delayed action on my proposed changes. My responses above from today on issues #2–4 are further indented and bulleted. I've removed the superscripted quoted references that you pointed out from the article; I'm willing to remove all non-superscripted quoted references as well if you'd prefer this. I also proposed an alternative solution which I think should be mutually satisfying.
With respect to your concerns in #6–8, can you give me some guidance as to what you'd like me to change in the article? I'm not really sure what the particular issue or desired solution is in those cases. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: I'd be happy to address these and any other issues you find with the article; I still need a little more feedback to act on the remaining issues though. If any of my responses/revisions weren't to your liking, please let me know and I'll attempt to resolve the issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For β versus beta, it probably just needs a note in the lead. 99% of readers will know it, but the few will be informed. For HMB-Ca, CaHMB, and Ca-HMB, listing the two most distinct ones in parenthesis should do (HMB-Ca, CaHMB). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also did check references, but found no information missing, so I suppose that deserves a "well done". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: How's this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution, 6 and 7 considered sorted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Ah, good. I'm not sure if you saw, but in that same edit diff, I also added the CaHMB abbreviation to "(HMB-Ca, CaHMB)", as you proposed. Was there something else that you wanted me to do in order to address #8?

For #2, I added the note to the table as a footer as we discussed a while back (see the table in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Detection in body fluids). Did you want me to implement it differently, or is that issue addressed?

For #4, I replaced every instance of "a-KIC" with "[α-KIC]" in the references so that the article exclusively uses the abbreviation α-KIC now. Did this change address that issue?
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Ah, ok. Have I addressed #2 then? In this edit, I moved the old note 8 to the table footer as we discussed.
For #3 (footnotes in quotes), did you want me to remove only the superscripted footnotes (which I did in this edit), or all footnotes in quotes? If you'd like, I can remove the others as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was the footnotes that you see in the quotes in the references section I was complaining about. I don't think you need the "..." but that is superior to a number with no explanation. I have struck off those complaints 2 and 3 now addressed. Perhaps there is still to much text quoted in references. But I won't hold that against FA status, and I will leave it to others to decide how much is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Alright. Thanks again for taking the time to do this review of the article! Do you think that there's anything else I can do to improve the article? Also, if you happen to notice any issues related to the FA criteria that still need to be addressed, please let me know. In either case, I'd be happy to work on making the necessary revisions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CFCF

[edit]

Comments before looking into sources:

  1. Infobox includes US & UN status, is there any EU, AU, JP or other status that could go here as well?
  2. From lede: "Supplemental HMB is also used by athletes to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce exercise-induced skeletal muscle damage, and speed recovery from high-intensity exercise."
    How well does it work? What type of study examined this, how strong is the evidence?
  3. Same as above, but for the body, I want more information on the quality of the studies and whether the effect is great or barely significant.
    1. Did they compare to placebo, BCAA or Leucine?
  4. Who funded these studies? HMB-supplementation is controversial, and it is known that a number of studies are funded by the manufacturers.
  5. Are there meta-analyses? If no, why not? Did anyone suggest there is need for further analysis to say whether the effect is significant.
  6. From lede: "Small amounts of HMB are present in certain foods, such as alfalfa, asparagus, avocados, cauliflower, grapefruit, catfish, and milk." — but it also says " substance that is naturally produced in humans and used as nutritional supplement." Does that mean it's supplemented to alfalfa, asparagus etc. or is it naturally produced outside of humans as well?
  7. From lede:"As of 2015, HMB has not been banned by the [...]", this would sound better as "is allowed".
  8. The NCAA college students study, was it American?
  9. From lede: "Since only a small fraction of l-leucine is metabolized into HMB, pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood and muscle can only be achieved by supplementing HMB directly. A healthy adult produces approximately 0.3 grams per day, while supplemental HMB is usually taken in doses of 3–6 grams per day." — Seems to imply there is a correlation between supplemented dose and blood concentrations — but not at what level. Supplemental doses could be at 3-6 grams with 0% absorbed and do nothing.

More comments later. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I haven't come across any references that make a statement about HMB's regulatory status in those countries.
  2. There's 5 medical claims in that sentence; the effects on size and strength aren't covered in any more detail in the article. Lean mass changes in athletes aren't covered in the article, but the effect size from a meta-analysis on changes in lean mass in elderly subjects is covered in a note in the medical section. The inhibitory effects on exercise-induced muscle damage, as measured by changes in muscle damage biomarkers, is mentioned in a note in the sentence in the body; the capacity for it to speed recovery from high intensity exercise is essentially just a consequence of its inhibitory effect on muscle damage; it tends to decrease soreness when used at an appropriate time prior to high-intensity exercise.
    I'm waiting for this systematic review to be published before adding more detail about the HMB treatment effect sizes for muscle strength, muscle size, and lean mass in athletes - effect sizes for some of these vary by the training status and presumably also vary by the age of the individual.
    All of this information comes from reviews of blinded RCTs.
  3. Re-above. I intend to update the body and lead when that systematic review is published.
  4. Metabolic Technologies Inc., which holds all of the current HMB patents and licenses the right to manufacture it, has funded only 12 HMB studies, based upon [46]. Around 60 clinical trials have been conducted with HMB in humans. "HMB-supplementation is controversial" - I haven't come across a reliable source that makes an assertion like this; I don't know what you're basing that statement on.
  5. There are meta-analyses. There are two current meta-analyses which examine its clinical effects in sarcopenia/muscle wasting. All the other meta-analyses, some of which examined the effect sizes in athletes, are outside WP:MEDDATE. IIRC the most recent of those is 7 years old. None of the sources that are cited in the article, which includes almost every MEDRS-quality review on the subject, assert that any of those 5 effects is equivocal. Certain sources, such as [47], mentioned other performance-enhancing effects (e.g., aerobic performance) that were found in a small number of clinical trials, but which do require more research to verify. I didn't mention those effects in the article.
  6. It's naturally produced in plants and animals.
  7. I agree that it would improve the language; however, the NCAA and WADA don't white-list or endorse substances, so it technically wouldn't be accurate.
  8. IIRC, yes.
  9. I haven't come across a source that explicitly mentions the absolute bioavailability for oral administration. One can easily find the relevant information on blood concentrations in the detection in body fluids section though; based upon the data there, oral administration of 3 grams of HMB-FA increases the plasma concentration of HMB by ~100-fold above basal levels at Tmax.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: is there anything in particular that you'd like me to add to or change in the article? For the most part, I'm not really sure what you'd like to see revised in the article (excluding the coverage of effect sizes - I'm still waiting on that systematic review to be published). FWIW, the sentence on the NCAA study (you mentioned this in #8) was revised to indicate that the sampled population was American student athletes; I'm not sure if that was an issue for you though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: Not sure if you received my last ping notification, so I'm pinging you again. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes, and have no further comments. However compared to your earlier work this is not entirely on par with it. I would have no issue supporting GA as it is, however FA seems dubious because it is likely the knowledge on the topic will change soon. Accepting it now would require a FAR in a couple of months and I'm cautious to fully support it because of that. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: I spent about two years working on the amphetamine article and summarizing about 80 years of clinical research and 20-30 years of pharmacological research before it was finally promoted to FA status. I've also spent a lot of time further improving the amphetamine article by adding more recent medical reviews after it was promoted in January 2015. In comparison, I've only spent 8 months working on this article to summarize 20 years of clinical/pharmacological research and 10 years of medical research. In a nutshell, there isn't as much of a comprehensive understanding of the clinical effects and pharmacology of this compound as there is for amphetamine.
If the amount of coverage of these topics isn't what you meant by "not entirely on par [with my earlier work]", can you give me a general idea of what you think I should pay attention to improving in this article? I'll make a sincere effort to improve what you believe to be deficient if I can find suitable references to improve coverage of that aspect of the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because knowlege on a topic will increase in the next few years does not prevent FA status. We just have to assess this on what is already published. If our coverage is justified by that then we can count broadness and completeness satisfied. An editor may have insider or unpublished knowlege about something important coming up on the topic, but at this point that is original research, and merely means the article should be updated later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missunderstand Graeme. My qualms lie in the fact that the field is very much divided with as Seppi describes it "large" reviews coming up. While a lack of certainty isn't an argument against FA-status, a quickly shifting field is. In the requirements for FA an article is to be "stable", and if it covers an issue that will undoubtably change in the coming year (not couple of years) that article will be either inherently unstable or simply incomplete and outdated before even being shown on the main page. So either we promote it and demand review as soon as newer articles are released, or we accept outdated content for the main-page... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many subjects that are controversial for which featured articles have been written. What is wrong with presenting the present state of knowledge? A featured article is only highlighted on the front page for a single day and it is unlikely the scientific consensus will change markedly between today and when the article is featured on the front page. If and when new reviews are published that support a change of consensus, then we can revisit the featured status of this article. Boghog (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, based upon the title of the upcoming systematic review that I mentioned earlier ("Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate free acid improves resistance training-induced muscle mass and function: a systematic review"), I don't expect that I'm going to end up revising any existing article text since the article currently includes the same medical claim as the statement in the title of that systematic review. More than likely (i.e., barring any unexpected findings from the most recent RCTs in athletes), what I'll end up needing to do when that review is published is add about a paragraph of new text to describe the effect sizes associated with the clinical effects in athletes that are already mentioned in the article. I have no qualms with stating that a lack of efficacy has been established for all of these clinical effects if that happens to be the conclusion of the systematic review; however, even in those circumstances, revising the article accordingly wouldn't make the article unstable – unless there's an active content dispute or edit warring – because it would only require a single edit to update the article and address this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

After two months this review has generated a good deal of discussion but unfortunately nothing approaching consensus to promote, so I'll archive it shortly. Perhaps a Peer Review would be useful before a re-nomination at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2016 [48].

SpongeBob SquarePants

[edit]
Nominator(s): KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 16:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it meets all FA citeria to ensure that children's TV comedy show since I started reviewing the article. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 16:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Pinging Mediran @FAC coordinators: and others. [reply]

  • Comments
  • "The citizens live in mostly aquatic-themed buildings and use "boatmobiles", amalgamations of cars and boats, as a mode of transportation. Recurring establishments present in Bikini Bottom include two competing restaurants, the Krusty Krab and the Chum Bucket; Mrs. Puff's Boating School; and Shady Shoals Rest Home. Goo Lagoon, a popular beach hangout, is within the vicinity of the city, as is Jellyfish Fields. There are also a few episodes with businesses such as the grocery store, joke store, and mattress store." are there really not any sources that back this data up, other than merely watching those episodes?
  • Not only that but further down the page there are several attribution needed templates.
  • December 7, 2010, in the chart--does this deserve two citations instead of one because it is a special date or something?
  • Dates aren't consistently formatted especially in the reference section.

I posted this a few days ago on the talk page, but never received a reply. So I'll copy it over here as well: As one of the primary editors of this article, I'm sorry to say that I don't think it's at all ready yet for FA. A few years ago, I did a lot of copy editing, up through some of the Reception section. But before I could finish that section or go any further, I had to stop due to a lack of available time. There's a lot of good information in this article, but there were nonetheless significant problems with the sections that I worked on. And the sections that I couldn't get to likely still have a lot of work that needs to be done on them. If someone wants to make a significant effort, double checking references, improving prose, removing or altering anything that's inaccurate, and adding relevant details that have yet to be included, then that would be great to see happen! But a truly thorough effort to that end would likely take several weeks, possibly even months. And even after some really good copy-editing, there's still a lot of additional content that should be included, particularly about the voice actors and character development. I'm glad that KGirlTrucker81 appreciates all of the hard work that Mediran, myself, and others have put into this article. But I have to ask that the FA nomination be closed for the time being. --Jpcase (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2016 [49].

Malvern, Worcestershire

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the town of Malvern in the county of Worcestershire, England, in a UK area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), the Malvern Hills. In its time, it was a major Victorian inland spa town famous for its water, and later the location of many of the country's prestige private schools. During WWII it was a large centre of secret radar and avionic research. I greatly expanded the article and brought it to GA several years ago. The other contributors who provided some assistance with the GA, especially the referencing system they devised, have long since retired from Wikipedia and in RL. All help is welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A straightforward Oppose

[edit]

Several paragraphs don't terminate with a citation; a few paragraphs have no citations at all (Suburbs and neighbourhoods; Ethnicity; Transport). Singora (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might need a bit more work

[edit]

I think it might still need a bit of work before reaching FA quality. Examples include:

  • It needs a consistent citation style - this is a problem for both the online and offline sources being cited.
  • It needs a major check for broken links.
  • Some of the references are quite dates for the claims they support (e.g. the bus details are now four years old, but presented as if they are current).
  • It could do with a decent copyedit in places. As an example, "Victoria County History describes how a hermit Aldwyn, who lived in the reign of Edward the Confessor, had petitioned the Earl of Gloucester for the original site (of the Priory) in the wood, and cites his source as "Gervase of Canterbury, Mappa Mundi (Rolls ser.)"" - for me, this sort of writing is sub-par at FA level.
  • As noted by Singora, some sections lack references. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry Mitchell

[edit]

Hey Chris, great to see you're coming back to this and spending a bit of time in the mainspace, but as others have said, this needs work to bring it up to FA standard. I haven't read the whole thing, I've just skimmed it, but a few things stand out:

  • As a rule of thumb you need an inline citation at least at the end of every paragraph, and more for anything controversial or direct quotes.
  • The history section is quite extensive in places, but thin in others, and the 20th-century history is basically non-existent. If it was my article, I'd split the whole thing out to History of Malvern, Worcestershire and summarise the key points here.
  • You need to know the source material inside out and back to front, and you need to have it in front of you during the FAC (my coffee table gets very crowded when I go through my article-writing phases)
  • It's not a requirement to separate out multi-page sources like books in the references section, but it does make like easier when you want to cite various pages of the same source.
  • Several of the sources under "further reading" look like they should be cited as references if the article is to be a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature (FA criterion 1c); several others make me wonder what they're doing there at all
  • There are no page numbers for several of the books cited; where there are page numbers, the formt for providing them is inconsistent
  • There's a lack of bibliographic information for a lot of the references, and the information provided in others is inconsistent
  • I'd expect more detail on the architecture for such an historic town, including links to articles on important buildings and perhaps the number of listed buildings in the town

We have quite a few excellent FAs on English towns and cities; I'd suggest using one of them as a guide. These issues aren't insurmountable, but it's going to take a lot of work to get this up to featured standard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harry, I thank you all for your comments. I've never proposed a FAC before and I assumed the two previous peer reviews more or less gave it a green light. Unfortunately although I am the major contributor with ove 600 edits to it, there have been snippets with sources added over the course of time and I also had no part in creating the referencing system and I don't understand it at all. The guys who developed it and converted all the traditional sourcing methods to it have long since retired and don't even answer emails. I would never be able to dedicate an estimated 100 hours to getting this single handedly without any help to FA, so please consider this as a very regretful withdrawal.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung. I hope that it will return here at some point in the future... and thanks for all your efforts on the article so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, as the coord closing this review I also hope that you can continue working on the article and perhaps bring it back to FAC one day -- if you feel it might be beyond your capacity to invest the necessary time for a solo effort, you could perhaps take advantage of our recently introduced mentoring scheme... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

In terms of content, this looks pretty comprehensive, but the comments above summarise the difficulties. It will take a lot of work to fix it, and you may want to withdraw for a while if you don't think you have time to do it here. There is plenty of goodwill, so please do keep working on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2016&oldid=757503626"