Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2017

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) 22:27, 29 December 2017 [1].

---

Meteos

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Described as a "shoot-and-lift-up puzzle" game, Meteos is a Nintendo DS game produced by Tetsuya Mizuguchi, who also produced Space Channel 5 and Rez and had the former Kirby series director Masahiro Sakurai as its game designer. With inspiration from properties such as The Matrix and Missile Command, along with many different game modes including a story mode with branching paths, the game was released with praise from game critics, with some calling it one of the best games for the system.

Before ever working on it, its previous state didn't even have anything in its Development section. But after going off and on working at it for two years (with the majority being in December 2016), the article was expanded with the different sources used throughout and fleshed out sections to make it more presentable. And after passing its Good Article Candidacy and receiving a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors, I believe that it ready for an FAC. GamerPro64 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

• Footnote the Japanese name unless it's crucial to understanding the game.
  • Done. GamerPro64 23:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• More of a suggestion than anything major, but I don't think that "and plot" needs to be in the title of the gameplay section. Plots are typically part of the gameplay itself.
  • If anyone else has problems with the section titles I'll change it. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Ditto for "Sequels and".
  • See above. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Isn't the reception section a bit short for a game that got as many reviews as it did? I don't see many opinions as to whether its graphics were praised, or specifically what about the gameplay was praised as well.
  • Expanded the receptin section. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Unlink Platinum Egg in legacy, since it doesn't have its own page.
  • Not gonna do that. See Red Link. GamerPro64 23:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good work on this. Once my comments have been addressed, I will support promotion. JOEBRO64 16:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: Answered your comments. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Happy to support this now. I think you did an amazing job on this article. Good luck. Also, would you mind leaving comments at my current FAC? JOEBRO64 11:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• The infobox image requires ALT text.
  • Done. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Is this entire phrase necessary (the Nintendo DS portable gaming system) as opposed to (the Nintendo DS)? I have never personally seen it identified with the “portable gaming system” part, and it seems like an odd clarification as it could be read as implying that the DS has another type of system as well.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• In the lead, I would add the year in which the Matrix was released. This same comment applies to Missile Control, Tetris, and Lumines. Add the years for all of these in the body of the article as well.
  • Done. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• I would add the years in which Space Channel 5, Rez, Tetris Attack, and Space Invaders were released.
  • Done. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• I am a little confused by this phrasing (Its stylus was criticized) as it seems to imply that “Its” is referencing the game and/or the game developers. Is this a criticism of the system’s stylus or the use of the stylus in the gameplay? It is not made entirely clear here.
  • Changed the sentence to "Its stylus driven control scheme was criticized by GameSpy's Phil Theobald, who considered it the game's chief flaw." GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• The topic sentence of the second paragraph of the “Reception” section is somewhat misleading. It says that the gameplay was “generally praised”, yet a majority of the paragraph includes criticism about the use of the stylus. I would revise the topic sentence to better reflect the content of the paragraph.
  • Fixed up. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• The third paragraph seems a little unstructured. While a majority of it relates to the critical response of the soundtrack, the opening sentence mentioning the criticism of the plot seems a little out-of-place. I would see if there was a way to more seamlessly integrate the plot criticism into this section.
  • Fixed up. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved it to be the last sentence of the section. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• In this list (Disney characters Mickey Mouse, Jack Sparrow and Winnie the Pooh), there is a comma missing after “Jack Sparrow”. The article appears to using the Oxford comma rather consistently so it should be added here as well.
  • Done. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any more information on the reception of Meteos: Disney Magic, specifically why it received more mixed feedback?
  • Added a review of the game in the article. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• This is more of a clarification question, but I interpret this part (was also planned for release on SoftBank cell phones) as meaning that the release for these phones did not occur. Is that a correct assumption on my part?
  • Yes I believe so. Cannot find proof it was released for the cell phones. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• In this sentence (Chinese developer ShangDiHui released Mini Meteors, described as a Meteos clone, in 2011), who described it as a Meteos clone? Was it the developer, game commentators, fans of Meteos? I would clarify this if possible.
  • Answered. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my points so far. Let me know once you have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: I have responded to all of your posts. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing all of my points. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• The game was critically acclaimed, and topped Chart-Track in its first week. - What does this indicate? A short amount of context for Chart-Track or maybe for what a significant accomplishment this is would help.
  • Chart-Track is a UK market research company that keeps track of sales for things like video games in the UK. It's like Media Create for Japan or The NPD Group for the US. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify this briefly within the article both times it appears? ceranthor 10:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay. Done. GamerPro64 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Versions were released for mobile phones and the Xbox Live Arcade in 2006 and 2008 - This should be "2008, respectively", so you clarify which date corresponds to which version
  • Done. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• After three meteos fused and launched themselves and other meteos into space, civilizations on other planets plan a counterattack against Meteo. - watch tense in second half
  • Added "the" between "space," and "civilizations". I think that makes it better in terms of tense, unless I'm wrong. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Meteos was developed by Q Entertainment and released by Bandai and Nintendo, with Nintendo releasing it in the United States - where did Bandai release it - everywhere else? clarify
  • Bandai published in Japan. Added that information into the article.
• Make sure you stay consistent with using the serial comma throughout the entire article. I notice one missing in Development and release for example
  • Gotcha. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• "The game begins with a CG video explaining its backstory. In a Famitsu interview, Sakurai said that the video provided a sense of the game's world.[12] The game was demonstrated at Nintendo's booth at E3 2005.[22]" - this is a bit choppy; try to vary the sentence structure a bit more in this paragraph overall
  • Re-worked it. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• "The game debuted at number one by Chart-Track for the week of September 24, 2005, " - same note as for the lead
  • Explained in my first point. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• The game was compared to other puzzle games, such as Tetris and Lumines - Are you trying to say that its sales were comparable? Or just plainly stating that they were compared by critics? If it's the latter, clarify that
  • Clarified it as the latter. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Although it was originally planned for an October 2008 release, it was delayed until December 10.[72][73] - Does the source explain why?
  • No they do not. Destructoid joking explained the delay was "because Microsoft likes to make your lives miserable." GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Prose looks pretty tight, though I still think certain parts are a bit choppy. ceranthor 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Simple mode allows quick play, - What does this mean?
  • I expanded the sentence to explain more of the Simple mode. Think it makes more sense now. GamerPro64 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• The game was demonstrated at Nintendo's booth at E3 2005.[23] - might make sense to use this to start the following paragraph, instead of leaving it at the end of the current one
  • Done. GamerPro64 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, support. I think the prose is great. ceranthor 14:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

I made a couple of minor changes - in two minds about some of the quotes but can see reasons for leaving them there. Overall I can't see anything missing or needing rewording. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Some passing comments

• The Reception more or less follows an "X said Y" formula and could use some extra variation (some advice at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections)
  • Did some things for it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• "equated it to using the C-stick on the GameCube controller for Super Smash Bros. Melee (2001)" this would be trivia unless the allusion is explained
  • Removed it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• "Meteos' gameplay was generally well received," generalizations like these need direct citations, as the only immediate cite is IGN, which does not make this claim for the whole of the game's reception (it is different to say "multiple reviewers praised the gameplay" with multiple refs to follow)
  • Used your suggestion. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• It's hard to follow the barrage of reviewer names—I'd consider them unnecessary; many of their statements can be made with simply the publication's name or even no affiliation at all (when there is no opinion involved)
  • Reworked it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized"
  • Done. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Footnote for the Japanese title is not needed when the game is primarily known by an English-language/Latin-character title, not even as a footnote (WP:VGG#Lead, which has other general advice for Reception and other sections as well)
  • Works for me. Removing then. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

czar 01:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Meteos.jpg: Non-free image, use and license and rationale seem fine for me.
• File:Meteos screenshot.jpg: The use rationale may merit some fleshing out.
• File:Nintendo-DS-Fat-Blue.png: One wonders about where the EXIF ended up, but OK otherwise.

No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Fleshed out the second image's rationale. Is ALT Text required now? GamerPro64 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, but since they are image related I do by default comment on them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comments: Just looking at the lead, I'm not sure "and topped UK market research company Chart-Track in its first week" makes sense: missing word (as I'm pretty sure a game can't top a market research company)? "It was compared to other puzzle games" immediately begs the question "who compared it". Also, the word "game" appears eight times in the lead (nine if we include "Game Award") which is a little jarring to read. Then in the first sentence of "Gameplay and plot", we have "Described as a "shoot-and-lift-up puzzle" game"; we have a quote but no in-text attribution. And I'm not too keen on the construction of "Meteos' core gameplay mechanic has players move colored blocks". So I think we need a few more eyes on 1a. Also, I notice that Czar had a few concerns about the reception section and "X said Y"; I'd like a little reassurance that this is no longer a problem. I wonder if Mike Christie has time to have a look at the article? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

From a quick look, I agree with Sarastro1 that there's some more work to do here. A couple of comments from a not-very-thorough read:

• Meteos' core gameplay mechanic has players move colored blocks: I know what this means, but only because I've had to figure it out in previous video game FACs. At a minimum "mechanic" or "gameplay mechanic" should be linked. If you can find a way to phrase this so that non-gamers can understand it, that would be better, perhaps not using the word "mechanic" at all.
  • Removed "mechanic". Might be for the best. GamerPro64 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Aligning three (or more) meteos [...] cause them to ignite and rise: verb number.
  • I don't know what you mean. GamerPro64 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

    I meant grammatical number (it should be "causes" with multiple meteos); this was taken care of by a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• from which they can be unlock
  • Was taken care of by Ceranthor. GamerPro64 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Judging from the powerup description, I think the player will die if too many meteos accumulate at the bottom of the screen, but that's never stated.
  • Forgot about that tidbit. Added it in. GamerPro64 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• The game also has a multiplayer mode, where the player can send up to four other players a demo to play against each other with one game cartridge. This is too compressed for me to understand. What does the game cartridge have to do with it? Is this done over the internet, or locally, using wifi?
  • Added mention of Download Play in that section. GamerPro64 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• The reception section does seem to have thematic organization, which is a good start, but it is still a bit "X said Y"; the paragraphs are not much more than grouped listings of opinions. Czar is better than I am at this for video games; perhaps he can advise. A couple of examples: Nintendo World Report thought that music fans would find something they liked from the broad selection: this is a bland comment, and doesn't really deserve pulling out as a specific opinion. Why not merge it with the previous two comments, which are both about music, remove the direct quotes, and construct a sentence that describes the merged opinions, citing those sources? Then use a quote to illustrate, if you like. And why is the "incomprehensible" comment (about the plot) in the last paragraph, which is about visuals and music?

I think a copyedit would help, but the reception section needs a bit more than just a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I did get a copyedit for the article before taking it to FAC, though I did rework on the reception section during this review. I'll ask for another one. GamerPro64 22:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking back, I see some more issues with the article's prose. I am trying to go through and copyedit throughout today. ceranthor 21:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've performed an initial copyedit. Let me know if you think it's a move in the right direction, Mike Christie. ceranthor 01:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement. The first two paragraphs of the reception section aren't too bad, but the third is still really just a list of opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: just an update on the copyedit, Baffle gab1978 has started doing a copyedit for the article after making a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. GamerPro64 01:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

OK -- let me know when they're done and I'll take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The copyedits have improved the prose, and I've struck the specific points above. I started this pass by looking at the reception section, and I don't believe it is at FA quality yet. The problems can't be fixed by copyediting; the grammar is fine. It's a more structural, or perhaps compositional, issue. Here are two specific points.

• Game critics compared Meteos to other puzzle games, such as Tetris and Lumines. I took a look at the three cited reviews. Here are the relevant quotes from one of them (IGN): "[Meteos] is just as brilliant a puzzle game"; "can't be considered a Tetris clone, nor does it feel derived from any other non-Tetris titles on the market", "isn't a game that you can zone out with like in Tetris or Lumines", "like Lumines and its unlockable songs and skins, Meteos keeps the player's interest with dozens of different worlds...", "Lumines is a fantastic PSP puzzler, just as Meteos is an excellent DS one. Both games have their own merits, but I'm giving the nod to Meteos due to its more unique design, its incredible focus on a cool presentation, and its intense multiplayer sessions. Just like Tetris on the Game Boy, Meteos fits the DS platform like a glove, and the game should not be missed." Just saying that the reviewers compared the games tells us very little; IGN made many specific comments, and some of this should be apparent in the review.
• Take a look at WP:RECEPTION, and then read the middle paragraph of the reception section here. The structure is "IGN commended..., while G4 called.... Greg praised.... GameSpy criticized.... A reviewer noted.... Nintendo World Report also noted.... A review was more critical, calling...." This is the "A said B" problem. Instead of being structured around quotes, this should be structured around telling us what was praised, gathering points made in different reviews together, and only then illustrating them with quotes.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your complete review of the article, Mike. Am currently trying to figure out how to fix the issues you have brought up, primarily the second point, before this review gets closed. GamerPro64 15:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Baffle gab1978

I don't ususally comment on quality assessments but since I've been mentioned I may as well. I do my best to clarify and condense text but I'm not perfect and someone here is bound to disagree with my stylistic choices, so feel free to make changes. A couple of points encoutered thus far:

• I didn't quite understand topped the UK market research company Chart-Track in its first week. eiher. There needs to be the title of the relevent chart produced by the company, not just the company's name.
  • I reworked that sentence into "reached number one in DS sales in the UK market during its first week, according to research company Chart-Track." The title itself for the charts isn't really a title, judging by the link to the charts. GamerPro64 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense; thanks GP64. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Having found no Oxford commas (mentioned above) in the lead, from which I infer is the article's dominant style, I've been removing them all from the body text. Feel free to replace them if you wish.
• I'll probably finish the c/e tonight, I'm about half-way through it now. I'll post here when I'm done.
• Feel free to bring up any problems I should probably deal with; however, I'm not a content-building editor, just part of the clean-up crew; therefore, I seldom involve myself in content matters. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• My requested GOCE copy-edit is now  Done; feel free to alter the article as you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Popcornduff

I only looked at the lead, but it has a few problems, I think:

• Produced by Q Entertainment founder Tetsuya Mizuguchi and designed by Masahiro Sakurai, the game was released worldwide in 2005. This "XXX, YYY" structure is easily misused: XXXX and YYYY should be related, and these aren't.
• Meteos was inspired by the video game Missile Command (1980), the film The Matrix (1999) and the TV series 24 (2001-2010). Without further explanation this seems like a random list. So this puzzle game was inspired by The Matrix? What? How? Be specific or omit this.
• Playable characters include thirty-two aliens and their respective planets. This suggests you can play as alien planets. Is this the case? If so, what does that mean?
• Meteos received critical acclaim, and topped the UK market research company Chart-Track in its first week. What does it mean to "top a company"? If this is a company that makes sales charts then can't you say it topped the chart?
• It was compared to other puzzle games, such as Tetris (1984) and Lumines (2004). Compared how? What did the comparisons produce? Is it better/worse/different from/similar to those games? Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose by Ceoil

There is very little here if you strip away the various release dates, awards, etc. Improving the prose and what have you won't get away from this fundamental fact. Ceoil (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't help but think that this is a rather vague reason to Oppose. GamerPro64 03:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that Ceoil is claiming that it doesn't meet points 1b and 1c of the featured article criteria. I don't think it's the case at all, however - there is a fair amount of commentary on production history, reception, technical features and the like, Of course, I do usually review articles on point 3 so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: There are two standing opposes, so I think it is time to archive this nomination as there is no consensus to promote. I would recommend working on the issues raised away from FAC. In any case, it can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 06:01, 20 December 2017 [2].

---

Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series)

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the police procedural reboot Hawaii Five-0. The show features an elite state task force that solves extensive crimes on the island. This article has recently gone through extensive work to become a Good article and I believe that with hard work and determination I can help this become a featured article too. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheDoctor, welcome. Unfortunately I think this article is still well short of FA-ready, so I'm going to have to oppose at this point. Some examples of issues to address:

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
• I think a more comprehensive survey of the literature would help round out the article - for example, see here regarding economic impact to Hawaii
• Suggest reorganizing the article to improve logical flow and reduce or eliminate very short subsections, like the one on the car (see also MOS:TV)
• Citation formatting should be made more consistent
• The cast photo needs a fuller FUR to justify why this particular image is key to reader understanding
• There are stylistic issues throughout the article - for example, repeated links, misuse of italics. While I appreciate that you're wikilinking the acronyms in the Plot section, I think it would be more helpful to rewrite the section to avoid needing so many of them. Another example is the main cast section - you start out with a "Name. Short description." style, but midway through switch to a "Name, description" style. This should be consistent.
• Some of the prose could use editing for clarity and flow. For example, in the lead: "originally an in-name-only unit of but folded into CBS Television Studios" - took me a couple of reads to understand what this meant, and the implication of "in-name-only" is still unclear to me. Another example is the first crossover desccription: "Joe White calls in Agent Kensi Blye from NCIS: Los Angeles Office to review the video of John McGarrett, Governor Jameson, and Wo Fat for Steve, but only recognizes the word "Shelburne"." - it's really unclear to me what this is intended to convey. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose from Aoba47

I will unfortunately have to agree with Nikkimaria on this; I just do not think that this is prepared for FAC. A peer review may be helpful for this though. I can see large portions of the article that are not cited at all, such as the "Premise" section and a majority of the "Broadcast and streaming" section, and that is a pretty big red flag for me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Coord note -- based on the above commentary, and my own spotcheck of the article overall, I concur that this well-intentioned nom is premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly; I hope the points above are taken on board, including the suggestion of a PR, and that we see the article back at FAC in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 13:48, 17 December 2017 [3].

---

Bengal famine of 1943

Nominator(s):   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It is no overstatement to say that the topic of article is hugely important in the academic literature regarding famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered by academic consensus to be the paradigmatic case of a man-made famine (generally considered an inadvertent outcome of WWII; though some Indian nationalists consider it rather less inadvertent). Other scholars disagree, holding that it was a natural disaster, but its natural origins were obscured by the fact that accurate records were not kept of a decisive crop fungal infestation... In any case, it is a seminal event in world history, because of its horrendous death toll, its impact on world opinion regarding [British] colonialism, and its continued controversial nature even to this day...   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

General comment: This article is of undoubted importance. My concerns are:

• Length: the article has grown by 2,200 words since its archived FAC earlier this year, and now stands at 16,500 words or 103kb of readable prose, greatly in excess of the maximum suggested by WP:SIZE.
• The previous FAC achieved no supports and several opposes; is that not an indication that some intermediate review should be undertaken before its return to FAC?
• I see that the article talk page contains this statement from Lingzhi dated 2 September: "It has now been four months since the failed FAC. I will wait two more months, then I will put this article into WP:PR. After a healthy period residing in that forum (how long I leave it depends on how much activity it gathers, but I would say the reasonable minimum time would be 3 weeks to 1 month." I can't find any trace of this peer review. Did it ever happen? Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your spot-on comments. The peer review, with only one respondent, is here Perhaps I didn't link to it correctly. That review shares concerns about length; I respond by agreeing and saying I am very open to trimming some content which seems to be largely peripheral...
  • As for the first FAC, as nearly as I can understand, the main reason that a small but very keen and proactive group of editors was up in arms about that FAC was that the article version nominated was (by their account) created in an un-Wikipedia-like manner in my sandbox and (probably more importantly) thrown into FAC within minutes of its unveiling. This process led to concerns which I at the time (quite stupidly) did not foresee: that the article would be opposed on the basis of stability. So now it is stable.
  • There was a huge amount of discussion of me and my methods but not much discussion at all about the content of the article itself. One of the original Opposes has repeatedly said that the article is chock-full of errors, and is apparently keeping a list somewhere in his/her personal possession. But that list hasn't been presented. That editor has also made other unsubstantiated claims, and will probably show up to continue doing so.
  • This article is quite controversial and even repellent to both pro-UK editors (or in a less broad context, pro-Indian Army editors) on one hand, and Indian nationalists on the other hand, for completely opposite reasons.
  • The article is stable. I am quite willing and eager to trim text based on well-reasoned discussion. I am hoping that neutral and dispassionate reviewers will show up and begin discussing article content rather than Lingzhi.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Thank you for this reply, and for providing the PR link. The PR discussion rather confirms my fears, that the length of the article will not only inhibit readability but will prevent proper review scrutiny. I am all in favour of developing articles on important and controversial issues – and must belately thank and congratulate you for your sterling work on this one – but all is in vain if no one reads the end-product. I don't accept the oft-quoted dictum that all the arguments on any issue can be reduced to one side of paper, but I do believe that however complex a topic, a precise and comprehensive summary can be made in a lot less than 16,000 words. Anyway, I propose to read the article (which will take some time) and in due course I'll bring forward suggestions as to how it might be reduced. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I am quite genuinely in your debt, as are those who read the article in the future... I too feel that at least 2000 words could be sent into the ether with practically no harm done. Perhaps more than that? Skillful editors can determine the answer.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose because I can see the huge effort you've put it into it and it's good to see a neglected but important topic getting the attention it deserve. But ... good grief, 16,555 words! Barack Obama is currently the longest featured article by bytes and that's 12,600 words (almost fully four thousand words shorter); you could write a featured article in the difference. The three longest featured articles are all contemporary American politicians and although they're all far too long, it's understandable that it's difficult to split those into sub-articles because crazy people will accuse you of censoring this or underemphasising that. Although controversy still rages about the Bengal famine, I can't believe it's not possible to to split this article into smaller ones and summarise them in the main article (for example Background to the Bengal famine of 1943, Causes of the Bengal famine of 1943). I'm not criticising the impressive research that you've obviously put into this; it's just too big to be comfortably digested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look at WT:FAC you'll see that the nominator has requested withdrawal, and that I have volunteered myself for the task of reducing the prose. In time, a more concise version will likely appear here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 12:35, 17 December 2017 [4].

---

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment of the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Diverging from its predecessors, which were highly linked to one another, FD3 was written from the beginning as a stand-alone sequel. The film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realizes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about how they're all going to die.

I got the article to GA-status in spring and tried getting it to FA-status a few months ago but due to personal reasons was unable to continue with the review. Since then I've made a few minor edits, mostly focused on the sources, replacing them with more reliable ones. I hope people enjoy reading the article and become interested enough to watch the movie as well. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47

Wonderful work with this article. I will leave my comments/suggestions for improvement below and good luck with it this go-around: In the lead’s first paragraph, would it be helpful to add in the release year for the first film (i.e. 2000). It could be placed in parenthesis at the end of the sentence. Revised. I was a little confused by the note. You do not specify where the “six years ago” line came from. I am assuming that it was in the beginning of this film, but I believe you should fully explain the context by adding that to the note. I added a little bit more context as to when and where this happens. For the lead, please add the year in which the second film was released. Done. I think you can cut “who was” after you talk about Jeffrey Reddick for conciseness. Done. I would revise the following two sentences, “Final Destination 3 received mixed reviews. Negative reviews stated that the film was formulaic and did not bring anything new to the franchise.“, to avoid ending one sentence with “reviews” and starting another with the same word. In the third sentence you also use “reviews” in “positive reviews”. I would cut down on the use of the word in such close proximity. Revised though I'm not sure if replacing "negative reviews" with "negative ones" is that much better. I have done some revision here. Let me know what you think. Feel free to revert. Once I hear your feedback on this part, I will support this as you have addressed everything else. Aoba47 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Oh damn, I didn't even think of that. It is better that way, thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Make sure to link Final Destination 3 and Final Destination 2 when you first reference them in the body of the article. I would also add the release years too. Half-done. I need to link the third film to itself? Oops, you are right. I had brain fart here. Sorry about that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) XD Link James Wong when you first mention him in the body of the article. Done. In the “Casting” subsection, you do not need to link the characters as they are all linked in the “Plot” section above. The actors were already linked too so you do not need to link them again. Doesn't that fall under the same instance with Wong's name that people should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the main body? I would move the screenshot of the tanning bed death down to the section where it is discussed. I did think about doing that as while their death scene is the source of analysis.. but at the same time it was also pretty notable in reviews, being regarded as (one of) the best death(s) in the film / franchise. I guess it has notability in both sections. I will leave it up to further reviewers. It was more of a suggestion, as I do not have a major problem with the placement. It is a good screenshot for the section so it was a wise addition to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Wonderful work with this. My comments pertain just to the prose, as I will leave anything about source use and reliability to the source review. If possible, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, great job with this and I will support this once everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for addressing my comments. I will wait to support this until the issue addressed below about the "Reception" section is more resolved as there are some sticky areas with prose there that I agree need to be further revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: I did make some changes in the "Critical response" section. Unfortunately Slightly mad wasn't satisfied with them. I did make some further changes based on his comments. Are there any further changes you'd like for me to make? PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have made the following modifications to the reception section: edits. Feel free to revert them if you do not like the changes. Just trying to help out to improve that part. I will support this. I am not sure if the first paragraph of the reception section is entirely necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Aoba. I really appreciate the help. As for the first paragraph, I think it should stay as it includes professional consesus sites that immediately give the reader a general overview of the film's reception. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am glad that I could offer at least some assistance as I know that you have worked a lot on this. And your reasoning makes sense to me. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Slightlymad

Oppose from Slightlymad 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

From Slightlymad Fancy seeing this thing again as a FA candidate. Here are a new quibbles: Development That lengthy quote by the director could probably just be a blockquote Changed. Casting For what it's worth, photos of relevant actors are worthy of inclusion here. If you're a Photoshop geek, that is, try to do like what has been done in another FA: Tenebrae. Instead of combining two free images I simply put them seperately. I used Winstead since she's the films protagonist and Todd, as he's the only cast member to return, albeit in a voice-only role. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC) *I would source Tony Todd's film appearance, and add alt texts to these photos. SLIGHTLYmad 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Added alt text to both of them though I'm not sure if the description is satisfactory. Second sentence is still unsourced, or is it? SLIGHTLYmad 09:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Sourced. Filming and effects "Filming for the film wrapped" is awkward-sounding and a little alliterate (yes, pun intended); "wrapped" doesn't read professionally, either. SO fix. Took me a second to notice :P. Fixed. Music The opening sentence uses the word "composed" twice. Fixed. Critical response: The CinemaScore audience consensus needs an independent source as Twitter is generally not supported as a RS per WP:UGC. The problem with CinemaScore is that I had previously linked to the website itself but another user brought up the fact that in order to find the film's score, one had the write the film's name in the search bar. For this reason I decided to replace it with a more direct citation. Also, Twitter can be considered reliable when it's a verified account etc. And yes, while the Twitter account doesn't have that little "Verified" blue check mark, it is in fact theirs. If you go to CinemaScore's website and click on their Twitter account it bring you here. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Not to pull your leg here, but let's say they're indeed reliable, what makes Twitter "high-quality" then apart from its verification badge? SLIGHTLYmad 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure I fully understand the question. It means that despite Twitter's reliability, you will still have to explain how it's high quality as per the FA criteria. Same goes to BuzzFeed and Amazon sources—what makes these reliable? SLIGHTLYmad 09:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Well according to WP:Twitter, since the Twitter account of CinemaScore is posting information in regards to itself, it is considered acceptable. If you want I could simply re-add CinemaScore's website citation. As for Amazon, I don't I need to explain why the number one retailed in the United States (and probably worldwide) is high quality. As for BuzzFeed... does the fact the The Huffington Post's chairman co-founded it help its case? Apologies, but the CinemaScore still needs be sourced independently as I think it's been an established practise to do so. Take Dunkirk, for example. SLIGHTLYmad 11:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) I tried finding an alternate source for the CinemaScore but wasn't able to, on either Google or an archive website. To be honest I don't see what the problem with citing the primary source is. I mean, for the Rotten Tomatoes scores we don't need to cite an article that tells us what score the film got, we just cite the website itself. If there ever was an article giving the film's score, it's long dead and unfrotunately, not archived. Also, most movies that provide the CinemaScore with an independent citation are from like, 2010 onwards. Many older films simply cite the main website. This section is really eyesore and needs organization. I'm no longer accustomed with the usual A gave B a score of C / A said B and directly quoting just out of laziness. Have a look at this essay and study the examples there as it brings up interesting points in order to make this section a fine read. For better results, you must study all the reviews. (The first paragraph should stay, however, since RT and Metacritic scores are pretty standard to report on film articles.) Finally, you must emphasize here the fact that you say in the lede that the film was "formulaic and did not bring anything new to the franchise," and "praised for being enjoyable and offering its audience what it wishes to see," on whether these were widespread opinions among critics, and not just by a single reviewer. I reiterate that it's really important to study all these reviews for better judgement, as well as that essay I give you. @Slightlymad:OK lets see, excluding the first paragraph which is about website scores, the three paragraphs are about: negative reviews, positive ones and "other", death scenes and acting. Each one begins by hinting at what the nature of each paragraph and what it's about. I get that I should avoid overusing quotations and must paraphrase more. How should I proceed from this point? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Well have you began with a draft? Just be vigilant in avoiding OR on each topic sentences; as you can see in the True Detective (season 1) example, everything is sourced. And for the most part, the section reads seamlessly, and hopefully the same would be done to this article. SLIGHTLYmad 04:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC) @Slightlymad: Alright, I've changed the paragraphs to be explicit about a specific subject. First one is about plot and strucute, while the second one is about the death scenes and entertainment. The third is solely about the actors' performances. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Sorry, but I'm still unsatisfied with what you did here as not much has really changed; for instance, you signpost each paragraphs with topic sentences which more or less could be original research since they're unsourced; and it still adopts the similar structure of Author from publication gave a positive/negative review which reads tiresome and repetitive. In other words, you did a half-assed job here. I really think a lot more time should be dedicated to produce similar results that the essay demands. And for that, I will have to gently oppose the nomination until this is resolved. Reviews from the late Roger Ebert are never left out in this section since he has been immortalized as a highly reliable film critic in America: [5]. Here are a few high-quality reviews: [6], [7], [8] Roger Eberts review of the film is already there. BTW, thanks for the new reviews :D. Will add them after I've improved the "Reception" section. Accolades This table is too skimpy I would just convert it into prose. I believe I raised this concern in the article's talk, but you chose to willfully ignore it for some reason... Done. For some reason, even though I saw "I'd" my brain kept reading that as "I'll", so I just kept wondering why you didn't end up changing it. General prose comments This one should be the last thing on your mind, but check the prose if they observe proper logical quotation. Checked, doesn't seem to be a problem. I left out the "Critical response" section as I'm gonna rework it. I notice that you often begin sentences—especially in the Production section—with "In the DVD" / According to DVD interviews". No need to tell readers that; just be direct and get to educating them. Rewrote a few things but in previews reviews, users suggested that I state who made these remarks, so I can't just remove all of them. Otherwise, looks good. SLIGHTLYmad 04:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kindly read my reply above in case you're wondering why I opposed the nomination outright. One final thought: while it's not for me to decide who should review the sources, I recommend pinging the editor who had opposed the source review from the previous FA for assurance that their issue has been resolved. Thank you for your effort. Slightlymad 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Slightlymad: I've made a few further changes in the reception section with the help of two other editors. It definately looks better now. Is there anything else that you'd like for me to change; hopefuly change your mind along the way? PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources review from Brianboulton

There are several italicization issues in the footnotes. Publication details should only be italicized if the source originates from a print medium – newspaper, journal, magazine etc. This is not the case with ref 18 (604 Now), 33 (DVD Active), 40 (Netflix life), 57 (Den of Geek), 60 (DVD Reviews) and possibly others I've missed. OK I get that. But if that's the case then how come when using "|website=" in the template it automatically converts in to italics? @Brianboulton: I checked through them and I'm pretty sure every website's title is non-italicized in the references. Ad for Den of Geek, since it's a publication of a magazine company I believe it should be italicized. Additionally, I checked the manual of style in regard to writing and apparently with specific websites that are neither part of a print publication, nor do they have a page at Wikipedia, the matter of whether they should be in italics or not is a case to case basis. Now if you wish for them to remain unitalicized I have no problem with that but I'd prefer if DVD Reviews was in italics, otherwise it looks like, well, dvd reviews. Ref 20: Scoring Sessions – what makes this a reliable source? Well, the creator of the website, Dan Goldwasser, was editor-in-chief of Soundtrack.net for more that ten years. Moreover, the article does contain images, include those of the "gore-o-meter", to ensure the information presented there is verifiable. All right. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Ref 33: DVD Active – what makes this a reliable source? Also, where does the source support the statement cited to it in the article? Removed and replaced with the Dread Central reference which refers to the extended police-station scene. Ref 36: ComingSoon.net – what makes this a reliable source? Removed. Ref 74: What's the difference between "AOL Moviefone" here, and "Moviefone" in ref 10? In any event, AOL Moviefone should not be italicized. Fixed it. Don't know how I missed that; I think the "AOL Moviefone" reference was there before I started workinng on the article. I checked and both of them are just Moviefone. I assume the former reference had AOL written in is because they own Moviefone.

Otherwise, the sources seem reliable and appropriate to the subject. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: So, are the sources good? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

Comments from Jaguar

I think we should link Death in the plot section too. Added the little guy in. "On Winstead, he said that "[she brought] a kind of soulfulness to her role as Wendy" and Wendy "is deeply affected by the accident, but she's strong, and fights to maintain control"" - repetition of 'Wendy' how about replacing the unquoted Wendy with her character? Done. "During read-throughs, he often asked Morgan about Ian's facts; to help him, Morgan wrote Lemche notes and gave him URLs to research the information Ian gives out."" - stray quote mark at the end Thanks for picking that out. Removed it. "who appeared in the television films It (1990) and Carrie (2002)" - wasn't It a miniseries for television? Not quite sure on this, feel free to ignore You are correct about It; I could jut remove the phrase "the television films". "Custom-designed coaster cars were created and customized" - repetition of 'custom'. How about removed customized so the sentence reads like Custom-designed coaster cars were created based on events in the script? Switched customized to modified. Hope that reads well. All images are properly licensed under their fair use rationales, as is the non-free use cover image. I couldn't find any issues with the images, so all is well here This article has improved by leaps and bounds since its last review. I realised during reading this that I've actually seen this film before! I was going to do a source review but was beaten to it—my late arrival to this FAC explains the scarce amount of comments but I'm confident this is meeting the FA criteria. Will support once all of the above are clarified. JAGUAR  10:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @Jaguar: I changed everything except That (sorry, lame joke) part cause I want your imput first. And to some extend about the coaster cars as well. BTW, did you enjoy the movie? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I did enjoy it. I was reminded by reading "premonitions" in the plot section and then I thought, "oh yes, this was the film". I don't know why this received mixed reviews, but I suppose critics have their own different opinions. Anyway, I've read through the article one more time and couldn't find any glaring issues, so I'll be happy to lend my support. Good work with this! JAGUAR  11:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jaguar. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from J Milburn

I supported last time around after spending a while with the article, and I would like to see this promoted. Have all of the problems identified last time around by Ealdgyth been resolved? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Since the last nomination I have made some changes based on Ealdgyth's comments, like removing the stock picture websites, DVD Talk and fixing the CinemaScore link. If you are suggesting that I ping her to take a look at the sources... I'd rather not. Looking at her comments, it's pretty clear that she's not very familiar with film (and more specifically, horror) related websites and publishers. Nor does she consider RT-approved critics to be good enough. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Laser brain

• File:Final Destination 3.jpg - Acceptable fair use, seems to be the accepted norm among film articles
• File:Mary Elizabeth Winstead 3.jpg - verified valid permission via OTRS on Commons
• File:Tony Todd July 2017.jpg - verified CC BY-SA 2.0 on Commons from Flickr source
• File:Corkscrew (Playland).jpg - verified CC BY-SA 2.0 on Commons from Flickr source
• File:Final Destination 3 Ashley death.jpg - Acceptable fair use (in my opinion) as the image is subject to sourced critical commentary in the article.

Good luck with your nomination! --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: Although this FAC has two supports, it has been open for two-and-a-half months, and there is an oppose standing. I'm also not convinced that Ealdgyth's concerns from the last FAC have been addressed, and am a little concerned by the reluctance of the nominator to ask her to have a look. In any case, there is no consensus to promote this article and therefore I will be archiving shortly. Sarastro (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 01:33, 7 December 2017 [9].

---

Washington Redskins name controversy

Nominator(s): WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the ongoing controversy regarding the name and logo of the Washington NFL team. The article has been a GA for more that two years and been remarkably stable. The only issue may be that it pushes the boundary with regard to length. WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments

I was drawn to the article by its title – it looks interesting. I've only had time for a fairly cursory glance at the article; whether I'll have time to enlarge later, I don't know, but I'm sure my esteemed colleague Wehwalt will have things to say. Anyway, thus far:

• There are several paragraphs that end with uncited statements:

• "Controversy" section, para 4
• "Native American advocates..." section, paras 1 and 3
• "Alternative Native American opinion..." section, para 3
• "Other teams that use the name..." section, paras 2 and 3

• There are MoS capitalization issues in the section title "Alternative Native American Opinion In Support of Redskins Name". O, I, S and N should be in lower case
• Hatnotes should be placed at head, not tail, of a section.

I'll keep an eye open. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will, once I finish up my other commitments.Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the bullet-point items above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The "Responses to the controversy" preamble still ends without a citation. I think the answer is to shift citations 121, 122 and 123 to the end of the sentence. Also, the hatnote in this section is still misplaced. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the last hatnote, although I disagree with the strict application of the guideline on hatnote placement. Not all links to related articles expand directly upon the topic of a section, falling neither into "Main" nor "Further Information" categories. Placing a "See also" links at the end of a section indicates to me that the article is only distantly related to the section topic. "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation" (OAF) is such an article, which was created as a separate article by an American University class project, over my objection that the OAF was not sufficiently noteworthy to be more that a subsection in the main article. It was a "response to the controversy" by the team owner, but placing it at the top of any section gives it undue weight.

I am not aware of a guideline that paragraphs must end with a citation. The sentence is amply cited, three refs being place proximate to the information being supported, the opinions of individual commentators. Moving the citations to the end of the sentence removes this visual connection.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is arguable whether inserting multiple citations within a sentence is helpful or detrimental; mostly, citations are placed at sentence ends. I'm sure, also, you'll find that even without specific guidelines, it's been invariable FAC practice for some time to require that paragraphs end with a citation. I can't recall a recent promotion where this wasn't the case, and whatever you think personally I think you'd be wise to accept general FAC norms. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence, splitting it into two and placing the citations at the end of each. These statements of conservative opinion bear a lot of weight in balancing the article, so I am more interested in avoiding bias and OR than placement of citations. I had thought that placement of refs immediately after the name of each author emphasized the individual attribution of the content, but perhaps this is to subtle for WP.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In the list of "Individual Native Americans who are or have been actively opposed to the Redskins' name" you provide citations for all of them except Dr. Adrienne Keene - possibly an oversight? Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed Dr. Keene, since she is the least notable and sources for her are for general opposition to cultural appropriation rather than specifically about the Redskins.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources comments

A fair number of the sources links are displaying "page not found" or equivalent messages. Please visit refs 44, 53, 67, 83, 85, 96, 98, 102, 103, 109, 116, 162, 172, and 181. You should also look at 180, which doesn't provide an obvious route to the article in question. I'll leave the general sources review until you've dealt with these. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately an edit I made above changed these ref numbers.

However, I have found and fixed a number of dead links.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Further sources comments

• A large number of references are lacking publisher details, e.g. 11, 13, 14, 19, 29, and many more
• Likewise numerous retrieval dates are missing, e.g. 5,10, 11, 12, 16 and lots more.
• Inappropriate capitalizations in 5 and 23. It's not WP practice, even though a website uses capitals in this way
• Ref 30: The link appears dead. It produces the message "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below"
• Inconsistent italicization, e.g. with ESPN

These are a few points picked up from a very partial review of the sources. The section clearly needs a lot of further attention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments by Finetooth

Lead

• ¶1 "...a National Football League (NFL) franchise located in the Washington metropolitan area." – Delete "located"?
• ¶1 "...but it receives more public attention due to the name itself being defined as derogatory or insulting in modern dictionaries, and the prominence of the team representing the nation's capital." – The "due to ... -ing" construction is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "but it receives more public attention because modern dictionaries define the name as derogatory or insulting and because the team represents the nation's capital."
• ¶2 "...counts the total enrollment of its membership as 1.2 million individuals." – Tighten by seven words? Suggestion: "...has 1.2 million members."
• ¶2 "...again voted to cancel the Redskins federal trademark..." – Delete "again" or say when they voted before 2014?
• ¶2 Link Supreme Court of the United States.

General

• Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
• The dab checker finds no dab problems.
• The link checker finds four dead URLs as of November 4, 2017.

Update: Citation 182 is dead as of November 7. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Other link checkers find no overlinking problems.

Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The count of 1.2 million cited in the Amicus brief of the NCAI in the trademark case was not for direct membership in the organization, but is a count of the total enrolled membership in the tribes which are themselves represented by the NCAI. Thus it would be inaccurate to state that the NCAI has that many individual members.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I had to temporarily stop reviewing before reading the "Native American advocates of change" subsection, where the situation is made more clear. I think using "member tribes" instead of "membership" in the lead would make it more clear there too. Finetooth (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The latter is now "..counts the enrollment of its member tribes as totaling 1.2 million individuals". The other minor edits have been made.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

More comments by Finetooth

my notes in blue--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

History

• ¶1 "than to honor coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz" – I'd add the reason why it might honor him; otherwise it will not be apparent to readers unless they click through to the Dietz article. Done

Origin and meaning

• ¶1 "Much of the public debate is over the meaning of the word "redskin", team supporters frequently citing a paper by Ives Goddard, a Smithsonian Institution senior linguist and curator emeritus, who asserts that the term was originally benign in meaning; though in an interview Goddard admits that it is impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated." – Too complex. Suggestion: Use a terminal period after "redskin", then begin the next sentence as "Team supporters frequently cite a paper...". Reworded somewhat
• ¶1 "...impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated." – It might be useful to add the native words if that info is available.Native words are not given, but where first translated into French as "peau rouge" and then into English as redskin.
• ¶1 "Dr. Darren R. Reid, a history lecturer at Coventry University..." – The Manual of Style suggests using a descriptive phrase rather than an academic title. Delete "Dr."? Done
• ¶2 "In the Washington Redskins trademark litigation..." – This one really threw me for a loop. It took me a long while to realize that the link is to another part of this article. That's a confusing no-no. The fix, not necessarily easy, is to restructure the article so that the link becomes unnecessary. For the article to flow logically, something about the trademark cases needs to appear much earlier in the main text. I remember reading how to do internal links, so now I am surprised to find they are verboten. However, the link is not essential so I have removed it.

My point is that the first main-text mention of trademarks is here: "in the Washington Redskins trademark litigation". This needs further explanation at this point in the article rather than much later. Trademarks are mentioned in the lead, but the lead is an abstract of the main text (which needs to be complete without reference to the abstract). The question you have to ask is "does this article make sense for a reader who cannot read the abstract and hasn't yet read the rest of the article?" Links are fine if they link to an entirely different Wikipedia article but not if they link to another part of the same article, in effect saying, "To understand part A of this article, read part B of this article."

My solution has been to move the entire trademark content to become a subsection of the "Origin and meaning" section, since establishing that redskin is a slur was central to the cases. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That may work as a general solution, but "In a 2014 interview after the trademark decision, Amanda Blackhorse, the lead petitioner..." still precedes the explanation of what trademark decision this was, and in the trademark subsection "While Dan Snyder..." has become the first mention of Dan Snyder in the main text and needs a link and a brief description, "team owner" or some such. Also, Amanda Blackhorse should only be linked once, on first mention. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Did not think about the cleanup needed after the move, it has been done.

• ¶2 "...the linguistic expert for the petitioners, Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg" – Ditto for this one. You don't need the "Dr.". Done
• ¶2 "...sentimental paeans to the noble savage." – Link paean and link noble savage here on first use rather than in the Controversy section on second use? Done
• ¶3 "Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is due to most being concerned with more immediate issues...". – At first glance, this might be understood to mean that most of the minority are concerned with other issues. Suggestion: "Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is because most of the majority are concerned with more immediate issues..." I went back to the source to better summarize what Ross says, omitting the long somewhat ambiguous quote, but finding another more pointed one. I swapped the paragraphs since Ross is speaking to the issue of Native HS usage validating the Washington team usage.

Controversy

• ¶1 "...and why their use by sports teams should be eliminated." – Neutrality. In-text attribution here would make it more clear that this is what someone or some groups say, not what Wikipedia asserts. Entire section rewritten to emphasize the primacy of academic opinion
• ¶2 I'd add the names of the experts being quoted to the quote starting with "Since the first Europeans...", and I'd consider setting the quotation off as a blockquote, as in MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. The quote contains content that builds upon the other text, the connection might be lost as a blockquote.
• ¶3 No need for the "Dr." for Richard Lapchick. Done
• ¶5 "The team's owner[47] and the NFL Commissioner, supporters of keeping the name and logo..." – I'd add and link Daniel Snyder and Roger Goodell here on first mention in the article rather than waiting until ¶4 of the Civil rights subsection. Done
• ¶6 "In a report published by the Center for American Progress...". – The direct link to an external source from within the text should be replaced by an inline citation. Done

Native American advocates for change

• ¶1 "...the TTAB placed significance..." I think it would be good to spell out and abbreviate TTAB here rather than in the lead, as you do already with the NCAI. Done
• ¶1 Link amicus brief? Done
• ¶2 Link Oneida Indian Nation ? Done

Civil rights and religious organizations

• ¶2 "The Fritz Pollard Alliance, a non-profit organization closely allied with the NFL on civil rights issues, has decided to announce its support..." – Can you say when it decided this? Done
• ¶2 Link Fritz Pollard? Done
• ¶5 Link United Church of Christ and synod? Done

Protests

• ¶1 "Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, local Washington, D.C., newspapers have published...". – I would delete the opening clause and just start the sentence with "Local..." rather than having to say who assumes. I want to say something about the erroneous public assumption that this is a new debate, which is what the sources support.

OK. Finetooth (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Responses to the controversy

• ¶1 "Link Pine Ridge Indian Reservation? Done
• ¶2 "Snyder's response, and that of other fans, reflects the psychology of identification with sports teams. Self-esteem becomes bound to the players and the team, with many beneficial but also some unfortunate consequences, including denial or rationalization of misbehavior." Neutrality. This strong assertion needs in-text attribution, such as "According to X, a professional Y...". The attribution is as stated: the psychology of identification with sports teams. The citation is for a popularized version by a journalist, but academic sources could be added.

OK. The three citations offer considerable support, and it may be that no one will doubt the claim. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Native American opinion in support of Redskins name

• ¶1 "Soon it was reported that the Redskins' "full-blooded American Inuit chief" was "neither, and "Chief" was only a nickname, including being on a list of AKAs from court records related to "theft, paternity, and domestic violence matters." – The ending clause may be a bit too POVish in that it thumps on his wickedness, and the sentence is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "Soon it was reported that the Redskins' "full-blooded American Inuit chief" was "neither and that "Chief" was merely a nickname used by Dodson."
  • Reworded somewhat but it would be POV to exclude what the source supports, Dodson was not only a liar but a petty criminal.

OK, but the prose is still unclear. "Soon it was reported that the Dodson was neither a full-blooded Inuit nor a "Chief"; the latter only a nickname, including being on a list of AKAs from court records related to "theft, paternity, and domestic violence matters." How about "Soon it was reported that the Dodson was neither a full-blooded Inuit nor a "Chief" and that court records linked him to instances of "theft, paternity, and domestic violence."? OK except the word "matters" is part of the quote and applied to both paternity and domestic violence. Leaving it our implies paternity is a crime?

You are quite right about "matters". Between us, I think we have got it right. Finetooth (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 It would be helpful in this paragraph to add dates, if available; i.e., "states", "stated" and "published" when?

Name change as a business decision

• ¶1 "There have been no name changes by professional teams, though a comparison of NFL teams shows the highest negative trend in brand equity being the Washington Redskins and the Kansas City Chiefs, calling into question the business logic of retaining Native American names or logos that are offensive to even a minority." – Link brand equity? Who questions the business logic? This will appear to be POV without in-text attribution to someone. There is already an attribution of the brand equity opinion to two professors at Emory University, their institutional status being more noteworthy than themselves.

OK. I added the link. Please remove if you disagree. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• ¶1 "the value of the team has risen" – From when to when? What made it rise? Also already cited, the valuation by Forbes is for 2014-2015, although no basis for the valuation is reported

OK. I missed seeing the dates, but there they are. Finetooth (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have to take another break from this, though I still have a couple of sections to go. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The above will take some time, since I am not doing each item in isolation. The neutrality issue at the beginning of Controversy section has prompted me to rewrite and reorganize; and I have further summarized the trademarks section to reflect the irrelevance of much of this in the wake of the SCOTUS decision, although all the gory details remain in the linked article.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK. I hold off on further comments until the dust settles. Please ping me when you think the article is ready for another look. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Finetooth - Ready for review.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Third installment of Finetooth comments

DC Metro area jurisdictions

• ¶1 "the current governor opposes any change" – I would add his name, Larry Hogan, in part to make the timeline more clear. done

Public opinion polls

• ¶2 The direct in-text link to an external supporting source, the memo, should be converted to an in-line citation. done
• ¶4 Link pow wow? done

• I'd like to see how you respond to Brianboulton's comments on sources before spending more time on this. I can see at a glance that the entries have many problems, as Brian has noted. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• As noted, I made an intermediate edit which altered the ref numbers, so I went through all within the range indicated (~44-181) looking for dead links, and thought that I had fixed all by adding archive links or new sources.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• You may have fixed the dead links, but haven't made any response to my later comments, posted 6 November, which I concluded with "These are a few points picked up from a very partial review of the sources. The section clearly needs a lot of further attention." Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was only thinking of dead links and did not go back to the other points. The ref #30 (nor 29 and 31) returns no error for me. Since I cut and paste to construct references, capitalization and formatting is likely whatever the source offered. While about 85% of the article may be my work, I do not copy edit other contributors, and have no interest in doing so. Is there a guideline that specifies what reference parameters are required in FAs; and is there an automated tool to check for them?

The italicizing of ESPN in one ref was due to someone using the "website" parameter rather than "publisher", so I have changed that.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have to do the hard graft yourself. WP:CITE states that, while there is no single house style for references, citations within individual articles must be consistent. You are the one who brought this article to FAC, so regardless of what other contributors did, or of what form occurs in the source, it's down to you to create that consistency. There's a lot of stuff in WP:CITEHOW to guide you if needed. Note that the guideline gives specific information about the inclusion of access dates in web sources. I said in my 6 November that I hadn't looked at all the sources, and I don't want to do so until you've done what's necessary to bring them all into consistent order. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Placed the following in a comment at the top of the page: (working through the list, completed ref #49)

• Citation conventions in this article per FA review November 2017
• Name all refs name="authorlastFirstInitial.date", or name="publisher.date" (YYYYMMDD, YYYYMM or YYYY) if neither name nor publisher is this a RS?
• Parameters:
  • author(s) - for books and journal articles, first and last, for news and web sources, author=full name
  • accessdate for all sources with a url
  • issn for books
  • publisher and/or newspaper
• --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations, content

@Brianboulton, @Finetooth: I have completed a run-though of the citations. Could not resist tweaking the content alone the way, the significant change being adding a sub-section to Controversy that contains the academic point of view, leaving the opposing views for the Response to controversy.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Although the presentation of the sources has improved, there are still things left to do. Many retrieval dates are missing, there are citations to books lacking page numbers, at least one case of a missing publisher (ref 21), and continuing inconsistences in the italicization of publishers. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

For online equivalents to print news, most notably the Washington Post and New York Times, I have always used the "newspaper" parameter rather than publisher. It is the cite news template that italicizes this parameter. Is it necessary to add publisher=The New York Times Company ?

Ref #21 is unique, since it is a podcast which the author has also transcribed and posted on his own website. I have added the website parameter in lieu of a publisher since the text version is essentially self-published, and there seems to be no option for citing non-print media, but I consider it a RS nonetheless.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Notes on citations:

• As I stated above, it has always been my assumption that the accessdate parameter applied only to citations with urls, not books or journal articles which have permanent identifiers such as isbn, doi, or jstor permalink. The cite journal template documentation specifically notes that a doi precludes the need for an access-date.
  • I have since discovered that using accessdate without a url generates an error, but not one that is usually visible.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Journal articles cited:
  • #9 - Clark (2005) has doi
  • #18 - Shoemaker (1997) since url is to a pdf, added accessdate, jstor link to journal
  • #59 - Chaney (2001) since this was published by a research institute, there was no doi; added link to pdf and accessdate
  • #60 - Kim-Prieto, Chu (March 2010) - has doi
  • #210 - Charles Springwood (February 2004) - needs doi added doi

• Books cited:
  • #17 - Shoemaker (2004) needs page numbers direct quote is on page 129
  • #27 - Stapleton (2001) needs page numbers added goggle books url and accessdate, page 83
  • #32 - King (2016) needs page numbers added goggle books url and accessdate, page 16, chapter "Origins"

• Missing accessdates: (Missed these because I did not think of the obvious method for finding missing "Retrieval"; using the browser Find on the page rather that scanning the source code...)
  • #23 - American Heritage Dictionary fixed, also added etymology that includes Native words translated into French, then English
  • #69 - Amanda Terkel (July 22, 2014) done
  • #74 - APA (2005) done
  • #76 - AAA publisher and accessdate
  • #85 thru 88 done
  • #96 - Joe Heim (November 23, 2016) done
  • #98 - Dirk Lammers (October 22, 2012) done
  • #112 - Dan Steinberg (June 3, 2014) done
  • #113 - Fred Hiatt (September 21, 2014) done
  • #115 - also needs author corrected newspaper also
  • #116 - Todd Unger (October 13, 2013) done
  • #117 - also need author done
  • #123 - Associated Press (October 12, 2014) done
  • #124 - Associated Press (November 2, 2014) done
  • #125 - John Woodrow Cox (November 2, 2014) done
  • #126 - Jeff Gammage (October 20, 2017) done
  • #128 - author? Redundant second ref, deleted (thus changing all the following ref numbers)
  • #128 - NARF done
  • #129 - Melissa Griffiths (June 25, 2015) done
  • #147 - Cindy Boren (June 12, 2013) added accessdate
  • #148 - Dave McKenna (June 27, 2013) added accessdate
  • #150 - Paul Woody (May 15, 2013) added accessdate
  • #152 - Mark Sullivan (July 3, 2014) added accessdate
  • #154 - Mike Jones (November 25, 2013) added accessdate
  • #155 - Erik Brady (November 27, 2013) added accessdate
  • #156 - Benjamin Freed (November 26, 2013) added accessdate
  • #157 - Megan Finnerty (October 10, 2014) added accessdate
  • #158 - Dan Steinberg (August 12, 2014) added accessdate
  • #159 - Laura Stampler (August 12, 2014) added accessdate
  • #160 - added website, accessdate
  • #161 - Dave McKenna (October 7, 2014) added accessdate
  • #178 - J. P. Finlay (January 4, 2015) added accessdate
  • #206 - PPP added accessdate, publisher, fixed title
  • #210 - Dhillon etal added accessdate
  • #213 - Scott Clement; Emily Guskin (May 19, 2016) added accessdate

Working --WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Completed --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton, @Finetooth: There is likely only a brief window between the holidays when further progress might be made. I would appreciate a final decision, but think that the article has already been improved, so whether it is GA or FA is not that significant. However page views do peak during American football season.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've made many improvements to the article since the start of this nomination, but I think it doubtful that promotion is likely during this go-round. From some of our exchanges here, I gather that you are relatively unfamiliar with FAC and were caught by surprise at some of the criteria. A "final decision" is not something that happens here; promotion or archiving are the two possible outcomes, and archiving does not eliminate the possibility of re-nomination. The main thing the current nomination is lacking at this point is further review by fresh eyes. My suggestion is to withdraw the nomination, submit it to WP:PR and/or seek out other interested editors to review the article and make further improvements before re-nominating. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for the nomination was to prompt the attention of fresh eyes, which has been difficult to get for this article. Since a new year is approaching, if I do nothing, this discussion will be archived? That is fine with me; and I appreciate the attention given.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Finetooth – early promotion looks unlikely. We are approaching the Christmas season when it becomes harder to get reviwers' commitment, and I think a renewed FAC early next year, when the lessons of this attempt have been absorbed, is probably the best way forward. This being your first FAC nomination, you might consider working on the re-nom with a mentor, who would ensure that the article was fully prepared before submission, and would smooth the way through the process. Mentored FACs rarely fail to get through. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Coord note -- my inclination is to archive this given the comments above and the length of time the nom has been open; for the sake of transparency, I did copyedit a few sections early on with the intention of recusing my coord duties and commenting but didn't find the time to complete that, so I don't think I have a COI here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 23:19, 4 December 2017 [10].

---

Phillips Exeter Academy Library

Nominator(s): alphalfalfa^(talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Phillips Exeter Academy Library is a significant piece of modern American architecture, designed by Louis Kahn in 1965. It was awarded the Twenty-five Year Award in 1997, and was honored on a stamp issued by the United States Postal Service in 2005 recognizing "Masterworks of Modern Architecture." It is the largest secondary school library in the world, able to house 250,000 volumes. alphalfalfa^(talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This nomination is premature. The editor appears to have only made three edits to the article. I suggest this be withdrawn and placed up for peer review. JOEBRO64 01:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree – withdraw; there's lots more work that needs to be done. The nominator opened a peer review, shortly after making this nom. The FAC nominating procedure is incomplete – there's no link on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

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) 23:20, 4 December 2017 [11].

---

Jack Crossland

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack Crossland was one of a number of "suspect" bowlers during the late 19th century. His bowling action was generally considered to be a throwing one, rather than a bowling one, and it was this that defined him in history. Had his action been commonly judged as fair, he would probably have played Test cricket for England, but instead he was the subject of continued and growing protests from crowds, administrators and fellow players. In the end, he was thrown out of county cricket for living in the wrong place! An interesting cricketing story that I enjoyed researching. As ever, all criticism is welcome. Harrias ^talk 10:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:John_Crossland.jpg: does the given source provide credit for this image?

• No, is that a problem for a fair use tag? Harrias ^talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, just wondered about the possibility of tracking down an earlier publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Kennington_oval_1891.jpg: given tag requires that you demonstrate steps taken to try to ascertain author, but it appears an author is named at the source page? Also, when/where was this first published?

• I've clarified this a little bit on the Commons page. The photographer remains unknown, but the photo was published in 1891 in W. G. Grace's book, "Cricket". I'm pretty awful with image copyright stuff, so let me know what more needs to be done on this. Harrias ^talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Basically what you have to do to use that UK-unknown tag is explicitly lay out on the image page what steps you've taken to try to identify a photographer. For example, if the original source doesn't credit the image (either in caption or elsewhere in the book), you should say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Ranji_1897_page_231_Lord_Harris.jpg needs a US PD tag and date of death for author

• Again, "E. Hawkins & Co., Brighton" is a company, so the specific photographer is unknown. Presumably this needs a different tag? Harrias ^talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• My understanding of UK law is that expiration of copyright for corporate works is still dependent on the life of the actual photographer (see here). If the specific photographer is unknown, you can use the UK-unknown tag as for the above image, and follow its provisions as far as UK copyright. As far as US copyright, with a pre-1923 publication PD-US would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I've put some more details on them both, how are they? Harrias ^talk 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting also while I'm here that several of your harvlinks are broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this Nikkimaria. As I said above, I find the image copyright and tagging a minefield, so any assistance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Also, was there any specific way you found out the harvlinks were broken, or just by clicking on them? Harrias ^talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a neat script, you could install it to check those. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks. You are, as ever, a star. Harrias ^talk 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "claiming 112 wickets at an average of just over ten" - per match?
  • Added a wikilink and a note to explain this better. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• "Lancashire were recognised by some publications as being champion county, or more commonly as joint champions with Nottinghamshire in 1882" - is this mentioned in the source that they were recognized by different publications as top county?
  • Added a better reference for this. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• "Crossland was strong again, and claimed ten wickets in a match on three occasions;[13] first against Oxford University in late May–early June.[48]" - why the semi colon instead of a comma here?
  • I like semi colons! Changed to a comma. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• The second paragraph in "Termination of county cricket career" seems out of place; it seems like it should be under a legacy section
  • Restructured a little bit, how's that? Harrias ^talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• "his yorker were described" - do you mean to say was described?
  • Yes, changed. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

These are generally nitpicks, as the article is in great shape. Well done! ceranthor 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks; I've addressed each of your points, most significantly the note to explain bowling averages, and the restructure towards the end, let me know how you think they work. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on the prose. Good work. ceranthor 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm obviously going to review this one! (So I'm recusing as coordinator) A quick glance looks really good; I wonder though do we need a little more on the wider throwing issue? It was a prickly topic after this, pretty much up to the time of Arthur Mold and I wonder do we need that context? For throwing continued after Crossland disappeared, and became an even bigger issue. Sourcing looks good. There is a little bit on this in the Brodribb book on the laws of cricket (it's in the Mold bibliography) so I'll have a look for it and see if there's anything useful there. But from memory, there's not much on Crossland and I think you've got it covered. I'll also look in the Lancashire County History book and see if there's anything there too. I shall delve in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• I missed the bit where he moved from Nottinghamshire to work in Lancashire, is there any detail there we could add?
  • I don't really have anything more than the article already has: "..he was one of a number of Nottinghamshire-born cricketers who sought professional contracts in Lancashire. The Lancashire cricket leagues began paying the best players to appear for them, creating an exodus of cricketing talent to the county. Crossland first gained employment as a professional cricketer in 1876, with Enfield Cricket Club." Or is this in the lead specifically? Harrias ^talk 08:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• "claiming 112 wickets at an average of just over ten." perhaps make that clear, i.e. ten runs (or ten runs per wicket for superclarity). I note the note, so perhaps just "runs".
  • I've expanded this a little for clarification. Harrias ^talk 08:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Perhaps use "ten-wicket haul" and link to the Glossary of cricket terms because we actually use the term to really mean "ten or more" in many situations, and since Cricinfo's Statsguru has died (for me, at least), I can't check if that's the situation with Crossland.
  • Rephrased to "ten or more wickets in a match" and added the link. "ten-wicket haul" is quite modern terminology, and I hesitate to use it here. Harrias ^talk 08:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• We have an article on Gentlemen v Players if that helps our readers understand that terminology.
  • I'm a bit wary, as given this team was a "Gentlemen and Players" it might confuse things more? Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• You have "Enfield Cricket Club" but have piped "Burnley", not sure why?
  • It was sort of a first-use thing; the first mention of a cricket club, I put the full name, but then I assumed it was obvious after that. Given the phrasing, I could pipe Enfield too I suppose. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• For that touring Australian team, we could link to Australian cricket team in England in 1882 instead of the national team for "touring Australians".
• Oh, you link it in the next section... perhaps do it here too?
  • Done. I've left both, it could be considered overlinking, but I prefer it for clarity in this instance. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• The Arguss should be (Melbourne) not Australia, and perhaps therefore "a Melbourne-based daily newspaper" rather than "an Australian daily newspaper".
  • Yes, done. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Link Old Trafford first time round.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Consider linking "town crier" as it's not a common term outside our shores.
  • Was the Empire all for naught?! Done. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• You link coal pit towards the end of the article but not coal miner near the top. Thoughts?
  • Coal pit seemed a more specialist term than coal miner, but I can link both if you think it would be better? Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• " to no ball him." hyphenate per before?
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Put (MCC) after its initial mention so when you use the abbreviation it's clear.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've recently stumbled on Trove when dusting up the Segrave Trophy, and found this which has a rather quirky anectdote or two about Crossland. Just for interest.

Otherwise it's a good read, seems comprehensive and looks like it's MOS-compliant, nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• • @The Rambling Man: I liked that story about the batsman being hit on the leg, and walking off anyway, but sadly I've seen the identical story about another bowler, so I'm a bit dubious about how true it is. There is another about Crossland showing someone the difference between bowling and throwing, which might be worth working in I suppose. Harrias ^talk 11:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Support it was just a thought about the Trove-ref story, (and a chance for me to say how much I loved using Trove itself) so I'm more than happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• CricketArchive, a much-used source, is behind a paywall and needs a (subscription required) template.
• Refs 48 and 71: other refs to this source contain links, but these don't
• Publisher location needed for Gordon book.

Otherwise, sources look good and appropriate - an excellently researched effort, if I may say so. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton, all sorted. Harrias ^talk 09:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro: I'm finally looking at this properly, and as usual have copyedited as I've gone along. I haven't had a chance to dig out those two books yet, but promise to do so this week! I'm down to the end of "Lancashire professional" so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The Lancashire cricket leagues began paying the best players to appear for them, creating an exodus of cricketing talent to the county": Hmm, there's something a little off here. Most of the leagues, particularly the official "Lancashire Leagues", did not form until the late 1880s, after Crossland's career. Additionally, the practice of paying the best players did not come in until a little later; I think Bobby Peel was one of the first good players to be tempted to the leagues. The source is a little vague on detail, I notice, and probably attributes more to Peter Wynne-Thomas than he meant. (There might be something in the official Lancashire history I keep meaning to dig out, as that is written by PYT) I suspect, although I have no source to hand, that it would be more accurate to say that the Lancashire CCC actively poached Nottinghamshire players rather than they were attracted to the leagues.
• Another (slight) problem with his early career is that we need a bit more context than sourcing to CricketArchive scorecards; coverage of these matches is a little patchy so there could be important things missing, and we don't really have any idea how significant the matches are. So, for example, "Crossland improved upon his previous efforts" may not be accurate as there could be other matches not recorded there. Additionally, I think it was the practice of Lancashire to farm out players to local clubs when they were qualifying, which might explain this a little more. Of course, we need a source...
• "Crossland's performances for Enfield drew the attention of Lancashire County Cricket Club": This is sourced to the obituary, which only says that he qualified for Lancashire. Similarly, "He claimed wickets consistently through the season" can't be sourced to the seasonal bowling averages; you might be better with the player oracle list of games played as your source.
• The list of performances is unavoidably dry, and might benefit from more details here and there. Where they might come from, I'm not sure.
• I think the best thing I can do before carrying on is seeing what the Lancashire History has to say; I don't think I'll get a chance to retrieve it today, but should be able to do so tomorrow. I'll also do a bit of digging and see what I can find. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is an obituary in Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game here but I'm not sure there's much new, and I suspect you already saw it. Sarastro (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Just noting that I've seen this. A fair bit of it I need some time in front of books to consider, but I don't think it is worth doing too much in advance of your digging, as anything I do now seems like it might be subject to change depending on anything you find. Harrias ^talk 11:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There is quite a lot in the Lancashire History, rather more than I can simply stick in here and there. Perhaps the simplest way to do this os for me to note the main details on the talk page. If there's anything that you want in more detail, I can send you the pages by email, but most of them are fairly brief mentions which don't warrant sending the images... and there are a lot of pages! Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've put quite a bit from that book and Brodribb's Next Man In that is relevant. Incidentally, the Lancashire book gives the full picture from which the image of Crossland comes. It is just a very close crop (hence the blurring) of a team photo taken in 1881. The credit is given to Lancashire CCC but no indication of when it was first published. Sarastro (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I do actually have the Brodribb book, which I bought on your recommendation a few years ago. I had thought I already had some stuff in the article from it, but evidently it missed the cut! Thanks for all that, I'll take a look, though it probably won't be until the end of the week now, I've got a few busy days at work coming up. Harrias ^talk 21:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a further note that due to some family illness at home (nothing serious, just typical winter bugs) I probably won't get to this over the weekend unfortunately. Harrias ^talk 13:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Withdraw; as nominator, I unfortauntely need to withdraw the nomination at this time. Harrias ^talk 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.