Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Super Mario Galaxy[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well this was unexpected. I first started work on this article in May when I went through my loft and found my old collection of ONM issues which spanned from 2006 to 2011. I remember my ten year old self reading through one of those issues and looking forward to this game. I've used a couple of those issues for this article, and my subsequent expansion and redevelopment of it carried on for a while. It has just gained GA status, and to be frank I think that this is ready for FAC. For a game considered "one of greatest" I tried making a comprehensive reception section, and even went overboard on development I think. JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Well that was certainly fast. Personally, I would have combed through the article a few more times before nominating it for FAC, but if you believe it's ready, then let's put it to the test.


  • It was first released on 1 November 2007 in Japan, 12 November 2007 in North America, 16 November 2007 in Europe and on 29 November 2007 in Australia. This is just a long list of release dates that most people don't care about. According to WP:VG/DATE, the release dates should be generalized, so maybe just say it was released in November 2007, it covers every release date.
  • It is the third 3D original game in the Super Mario series and the eighth main instalment overall. Link 3D. Also, what is original supposed to mean? Why not just say third 3D game, since I'm assuming your referring to SM64, Sunshine, and Galaxy.
  • The game was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011, and as a download via the Wii U's eShop on 31 May 2015 in Japan, 24 December 2015 in North America, and on 4 February 2016 in Europe. Once again, just a list of release dates that no one cares about. Why not just simplify the sentence to say something along the lines "The game has was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011 and on the Wii U's eShop in 2015"
  • It has since won several awards from gaming publications, including multiple "Game of the Year" awards and a BAFTA. What you linked was the BAFTA award show, so a game can't win an award show. Since it won the BAFTA award for Game of the Year, why not just remove that bit and keep it as "including multiple "Game of the Year" awards"?
  • It is listed among the top-rated games on various aggregate sites, and is the highest-ranked title on review aggregator GameRankings. This line is redundant. You already mentioned this game's critical acclaim, and how it's regarded as one of the best games ever. This line show be removed


  • Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space,[1][2] where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies.[3][1] The last two refs are out of order, always keep the refs in numerical order if they are next to each other
  • The game uses a new physics engine that allows for a unique feature; each astronomical object has its own gravitational force, allowing the player to completely circumnavigate rounded or irregular planetoids, walking sideways or upside down. Is it important to mention the new physics engine here? This section is about the gameplay, anything game engine related stuff should be kept in the development section.
  • The game's main hub is the Comet Observatory, a spaceship which contains six themed domes that provide access to the 42 galaxies available in the game.[3] Five of the domes end with a boss level in which the object is to defeat Bowser or Bowser Jr., which then allows the player collect a Grand Star in order to access the next dome. Why do only five of the six domes have a boss? What's unique about the sixth dome?
  • When the player first begins the game, access is available to only a few galaxies. This reads a bit awkwardly, try "The player only has access to a few galaxies when they begin the game".
  • Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, as well as two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board upon each brother completing the challenge. I vaguely remember what the message board was, but for someone who doesn't have a Wii, they won't know what it is. This should either be linked, or explained in more detail.
  • The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which appears on-screen (as long as the remote is pointed at the screen) for the entire game. I don't get this line. Is the Star Pointer a cursor? If so, then the line should read "The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which is a cursor that appears on-screen..."
  • Firstly, the Star Pointer is used to pick up special konpeito-shaped objects called "Star Bits", which are then shot to stun enemies, manipulate obstacles, or feed Hungry Lumas. What's a Luma?
  • Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. For example, special mushrooms bestow the player with a Bee, Boo, or Spring Suit. First, link power-up. Secondly, I actually don't like how certain words are linked. For example, I think we all know what a bee is, so that doesn't need to be linked, and neither does spring. As for Boo, it should be linked to Boo (character).
  • The Super Star grants Mario invincibility, allowing him to destroy any enemies that he touches, as well as jumping higher and running faster. The Super Star link just leads to the Super Mario page with no context.
  • When the power meter becomes empty, the player loses a life and must go back to a predetermined checkpoint.[16] The power meter can be temporarily expanded to six units... This threw me for a loop. Why not just say health meter instead of power meter, as I thought power meter was a new gameplay aspect.


  • Not much to say, as it's well written


  • My biggest problem with the development section is how all of the sources are from Nintendo. Obviously, if that's all you could find on the game's development, that's fine, but there are several interviews about the game, such as IGN, Wired, and Music4Games. I'm not sure how much info you'll be able to get out of those interviews, but if there is some additional information, it needs to be included in the article.
  • Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto suggested to work on the next large-scale Mario game after Nintendo EAD Tokyo finished development on Donkey Kong Jungle Beat in late 2004,[26][27] pushing for the spherical platform concept to be realised. Are you referring to the character Mario, or the series? If it's the series, then it should be italicized
  • The game's script was written by Takayuki Ikkaku. This seems rather thrown in, as Ikkaku is not mentioned at all in the rest of the article. I noticed that the source you used was the game credits, which is fine, but are there any other sources mentioning Ikkaku's role in the game? If not, I'd just remove that line.
  • The composition was approved by Yoshiaki Koizumi, the game's director and designer, but when Yokota presented it to Koji Kondo, he stated that it was "no good". You already linked and explained who Koizumi was earlier, while on the other hand, there is no explanation as to who Kondo is. Also, what was Kondo's role in the development? If Yokota was in charge of the musical direction, was Kondo just there for moral support?
  • Yotaka revealed that he initially struggled to create music that sounded like Mario, but as time progressed he declared that the songs he made for the game had "become natural". A song can't sound like a character.


  • It is the second best ranking game with at least ten reviews on the review aggregator website GameRankings,[58] and the best ranking game of all time with at least 20 reviews,[59] having a score of 97% based on 78 reviews.[37] As discussed a while ago, GameRankings should only be used if Metacritic is not available, which it is. With that said, every Gamerankings sentence should be removed, including from the review score box.
  • The game is also the sixth highest rated game of all-time on Metacritic,[60] with a score of 97/100 based on 73 reviews. A 97/100 means nothing, as it is just a number. I'd recommend looking at how Pokémon Black and White does its Metacritic section, by saying what the score equates to.
  • This was something that was pointed out in the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. PresN said "Try mixing up the "Bob of Website" formula- "Website's Bob", "Writing for Website, Bob"
  • Jeremy Parish of 1UP noted that despite the Wii's limitations, the visuals were "absolutely impressive", especially when modified at a higher resolution. It's, not just 1UP.
  • However, Hudak criticised the "traditional Mario-esque" lack of voice acting, despite admitting that if the game did feature voice acting it would "probably seem lame and wrong". This sentence seems completely out of place in the music paragraph, as every other sentence discusses the music
  • Super Mario Galaxy received Game of the Year 2007 awards from IGN,[52] GameSpot,[53] Nintendo Power,[54] GameRankings,[55] Kotaku,[56] and Yahoo! Games.[57] Why seperate this line from the rest of the section? Also, don't use GameRankings.
  • On 7 February 2008, the game received the "Adventure Game of the Year" award from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences at the Interactive Achievement Awards. Why is it necessary to mention the exact day it won the award, while all of the other awards were simplified to the year they were given.
  • One thing that bothers me about the Awards section is that it just seems like a long list, and I really don't like how most of the sentences begin with "In 20XX". Try mixing up the wording so that it doesn't get so monotonous to read

Overall, a very solid article, but it does have a number of issues that must be addressed before I can support it. Also, do you think you could return the favor by reviewing the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. It just needs one more support, and while it looks like David Fuchs will be doing a review, any additional comments always help. Alternatively, there's that No Russian Peer Review I've got up. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

2006 Bank of America 500[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 Bank of America 500, a NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race held in Concord, North Carolina at Lowe's Motor Speedway on October 14, 2006. It was the 31st race of the 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and marked the midway points in the season-ending Chase for the Nextel Cup. It was won by Evernham Motorsports driver Kasey Kahne, his sixth victory of the season. This is my second nomination; the first failed because of a lack of response from other reviewers. All comments are welcome. MWright96 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Distrait cognizance (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Sci-Hub, a controversial repository of academic articles that allows anyone to download journal papers without paying for access. Distrait cognizance (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Some thoughts that came to me while reading the article:

  • "Elbakyan has been compared to both Aaron Swartz and Edward Snowden." Does this belong in the lead?
Possibly not, I've removed it and at the same time clarified in which capacity she has been compared to them.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "sprang up" Informal
FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Repetition/possible contradiction: "Her stated goal was to increase the spread of knowledge by allowing more people to access what would otherwise be paywalled content." then, later, "Elbakyan's express goal in creating the site has been to provide research access to the less-privileged"
FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "She claims she would not have been able to pursue her research at a Kazakh university had she not similarly shared papers without permission, given the need to skim hundreds of papers." Source?
FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Claims hold that" Can claims hold anything?
Fixed —  "A number of estimates suggest Sci-Hub has already downloaded between 50–51 million different articles, which are stored in its database."Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The site gets papers" Informal and personification
FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "at JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier" Links? There's also a bit of a puzzle in that some of these are publishers, some are distribution platforms. (Springer is the publisher, JSTOR is the platform; SpringerLink would be one of Springer's platforms.)
Fixed Pretty sure JSTOR is an entity, changed to "owned by". Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Some question Elsevier's motives behind its simultaneous attempt to partner with Wikipedia to disseminate their paywalled papers" Weaselly. More details required.
Fixed Changed and moved down, hopefully more neutral. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite seizure of the "" domain name as ordered by a New York district court on October 28, 2015, the site is still accessible through alternative domains as of December 2015 and also accessible through the Tor network.[17]" This has been said many times.
Fixed, removed. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "In her defense Alexandra Elbakyan has cited Article 27 (1.) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights "to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".[30] [31]" This needs attention
Fixed — " In her defense Alexandra Elbakyan has cited Article 27 (1.) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights "to share in scientific advancement and its benefits", which she claims is hindered by publishers demanding payment despite putting in minimal effort in creation of the scientific papers" Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The lawsuit has prompted widespread criticism of Elsevier." Is that in the source cited?
Fixed — This source was originally used for a statement tying together the crackdown on Sci-Hub with Elsevier's donation of accounts to Wikipedians.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "while a number of publishers have been very critical so far as to claim that Sci-Hub is undermining more widely accepted open access initiatives" This needs attention
See now, Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Harvard and Cornell" Links? That sentence comes across as a little non-neutral.
X mark.svg Not done — How is it non-neutral? I've changed it a bit, but I still don't see how it could be written differently. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Some citations seem to be incomplete, a number seem to be blogs; not ideal for FA purposes.
Are there any citations in particular you find of lower quality? Some may be redundant, but I think most are there to support specifically what is in each statement, and the article would fall without them. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there are at least two things which could expand this article. First, there is no mention of the fact that, despite its focus, Sci-Hub has plenty of non-scientific papers archived, and is used to access plenty of non-scientific papers. Second, I think there could be a bit more about the way the website works.
I take to heart that a section of how the website works may be needed — but I don't know of any sources which explain how the site can access non-scientific sources. It doesn't bypass most newspaper paywalls. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask why you brought this article straight to FAC, rather than going through GAC first? That would be more typical, especially for users who are not particularly experienced with the FAC process. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason I chose FAC instead of GAN is that the coverage of Sci-Hub in this article far exceeds what is necessary for GAN. The prose and the disposition perhaps do not — but since I've already been through the GAN process a number of times, those are things that I would try to learn by doing.
I have no reason to rush this process, and rest assured I will go through each and every one of your suggestions in time. Thanks, J Milburn. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Ping J Milburn, pending some more additions on how the website works. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with the points Josh raised above. I'd also add a broader concern; the article currently doesn't place this website and the legal and ethical arguments concerning it in the context of the major debate which is going on about the business practices of the publishers of academic papers. This means that it's scope is rather narrow, and the narrative seems rather one-sided - it reads mainly like advocacy for this website, with the "reception" paragraph wrongly implying that this website alone is leading to a move towards open access publishing of research. I also have the following more specific comments:

  • "The site has seen widespread popularity in developing countries ... data released by Elbakyan shows usage in developed countries is high" - please quantify this. Is this site really widely used as this text says (eg, like YouTube), or is it popular among a narrower audience (which seems more likely)
X mark.svg Not done I don't agree with the idea that widespread popularity needs to be in the magnitude of billions of views a day. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "She claims she would not have been able to pursue her research at a Kazakh university had she not similarly shared papers without permission, given the need to skim hundreds of papers." - no reference.
Fixed Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
*This comment is a repeat of a previous comment, but actually this is from a source that was lost in editing, I will dig it up in the history and restore it. Rest assured I will respond to both those comments and these. Distrait cognizance (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Sci-Hub is the first known website to provide automatic and free access to paywalled academic papers" - this needs much stronger reference than that given. Websites with bootleg academic papers have been around for a long time. Also, what's meant by "automatic" here?
Fixed Its clarified in the preceding sentence now.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Court documents relating to the case are in the public domain" - isn't this normal?
Fixed, "Court documents which discuss technical details of how the site functions are available to the public."
  • The "Reception" section is totally biased in that it only quotes people praising the website. The fact that it's the subject of multiple legal actions obviously indicates that it hasn't only received a positive reaction - the grounds for this legal action are never really properly explained in the article. Moreover, given that some experts defend the practices of academic paper publishers (to varying extents), it seems unlikely that all commentary has been in support of the website.
Fixed Looking to see whether there are some more critical views. However, the reception has been pretty positive overall apart from the publishing community.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Added some concerns surrounding interlibrary loans. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The article is rather brief, and doesn't seem to fully exploit its sources - the Science article (clearly a high quality RS), for instance, has lots of useful detail not included in the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I entirely disagree that it is brief, and do not consider your oppose neutral if the only cause for it is that the website has a narrow scope. The article is certainly not short seeing as it includes nearly all of the highest quality RS sources that exist, so it is rather the subject that is limited, not normally a problem when it comes to FAC. The article should not cover all aspects of scholarly reform — but I will nonetheless look through your comments and hope that you will retract the oppose, since this article is being prepared in response to comments already.
The article in Science is actually not all that good a source seeing as it is an opinion blog. What contents would you consider lacking from that article? Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Weird Tales[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Weird Tales was the first magazine to focus on horror, fantasy, and science fiction; it's three years older than Amazing Stories, the first pure sf magazine. This is the longest article I've ever nominated at FAC, but I think the length is justified -- it's one of the most influential genre magazines ever published; and it has an inordinately complicated publishing history as well. I'd like to thank Bruce1ee and Josh Milburn, whose reviews at PR significantly improved the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support (but I am watching the page for any issues I may have missed). I had my say at peer review, and found the article incredibly engaging, despite its somewhat niche subject matter. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, Josh! Much appreciated, as was the PR. I keep finding little niggles myself and fixing them, so no doubt others will find more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the content – I haven't checked the sources, and many of them are offline. As I said in the peer review, it's an interesting article illustrating Weird Tales' turbulent history. It still is quite long, but I'm happy with it. —Bruce1eetalk 07:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks! And thanks again for the PR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: which Weinberg 1985?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how you treat website names - sometimes they're italicized, sometimes capitalized, sometimes "www" is included, but none of that is consistent
    I think these are fixed. I've been using what the automatic generator produces, and I went back and reran it on the inconsistent ones. The cites really don't have a "www" in the URL; I think all the others now include the www. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FN12, 17: date?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date format
    I think I fixed them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Missing full bibliographic details for Joshi 2001, Clareson 1985
    Joshi was 2004; fixed. Clareson added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FN48 needs editing for redundancy, and consistency with FN50
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is Jaffery 1984 or 1985?
    1985; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FN122 is incomplete
    Removed; the other citation there covers everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FN123 and 124 should be consistent
    Now a single cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weinberg 1985b is the only one abbreviating Connecticut
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Further reading should use the same formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    I cut the section; one of the books turned out to be low quality and I think all the information in the others is in the article or links. Thanks for the review, Nikki; I think everything is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

After a bit of a hiatus at FAC, I'm back with another article on a German warship, this time a battleship that served during World War I. The article passed a Milhist A-class review back in October 2014, and has waited for a shot at FAC since then. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Karl_der_Grosse.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The source does not say, and it would be unlikely to be able to track it down, but given that it's a photo from Arthur Renard, who sold his photos to the public in the age of navalism, it was available to the public from the time it was taken. See for instance, this advertisement posted by Renard in 1900. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Gomphus clavatus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This article has been buffed by both of us on and off over the years (but mainly Sasata. Having scoured the literature I am convinced it is as comprehensive as it could possibly be. And reads clearly enough to mine own have at it folks. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • "Research combining the use of phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences and more traditional morphology-based characters" Any dates and key studies to mention? Cladograms?
The main molecular work was done by Giachini in the early 2000s - will see what/how I can add. I added when, but paused at researcher names as am not clear how many people involved (mainly Giachini obviously) - you want me to add "by (Admir) Giachini and colleagues"? The published cladogram in 2011 onyl has two species.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as January 1, 1821" Had been set when?
this suggests it's little complicated..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, the "dilemma of 1950-1981"! I see... FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "brown hyphae" Explain?
It's bluelinked - would adding "(microscopic filaments)" help. Essentially the building block of fungal structure.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, makes it clearer for me at least. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
ok added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • felt-like tomentum", "fine hairs (tomentum)" You only explain the word on second mention, but link it at first mention Both should be first.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Basidiospores are" Explain?
It just means spores of a basidiomycete fungus - so have just written "spores" as we'd not call them basidiospores unles distinguishing them as a group Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Clamp connections are present." Which is what?
Extra structures that link between two cells in hyphal filaments. I am not sure how I can describe them succinctly, which is why I left a bluelink only Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Pseudocraterellus pseudoclavatus (formerly classified in Gomphus) is a lookalike species that grow under conifers" Grows?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "eutrophication is another potential threat" Explain?
increased nitrates in the soil - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is highly regarded by the Zapotec people of Ixtlán de Juárez in Oaxaca" Mention country instead of/in addition to Oaxaca, which has no link?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "family Gomphaceae" Only stated in intro.
I removed it - can be best covered in genus article - not controversial Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "and extinct in Great Britain" The article body only says England. Yet these are not necessarily the same?
Source covers "Britain and Ireland" - have changed to "British Isles" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

  • "extinct in Great Britain" Great Britain is an island, not a territory; it would be extinct on GB.
Source covers "Britain and Ireland" - have changed to "British Isles"....I can't imagine saying on the British Isles...but in the British Isles...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd personally say "on the British Isles", but YMMV. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "33 species proposed for international conservation under the Bern Convention" Species? Or species of fungi? (Or perhaps species of plants/fungi?)
fungi it is..and tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the 'father of mycology'," If you're quoting your source, this should probably be double-quotes; if not, it should probably be removed.
unnecessary and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "classifying Gomphus as a tribe within the genus Cantharellus in" Is tribe not between genus and family? That's what our article on the rank says? You later say "Fries' tribi (subgenera)"; I assume this is what is meant?
yes - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "In the Sherpa language of Nepal the fungus is known as Eeshyamo ("mother-in-law"), as its imposing fruit body is reminiscent of a mother-in-law, who has a dominant role in the Sherpa family.[29]" Do you think this is significant? It probably has other names in other languages... That said, it is an interesting fact.
Many edible mushrooms seem to be ignored in some communities and highly regarded in others. Hence it might not have names in many. It strikes me as a particularly rich bit of folklore, which was why I included it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is "later in age" grammatically sound? It sounds like you're merging two separate ways of saying basically the same thing.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The North American species G. bonarii features a dull orange cap with erect scales" You earlier said that G. clavatus is the only N. American species in the genus?
G. bonarii is now T. floccosus, so removed setence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of "Habitat, distribution, and conservation" is a bit tricky.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "European countries that have reported the fungus" European countries in which the fungus has been reported, surely.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "one of 33 species proposed for international conservation under the Bern Convention" As above
I don't follow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry- I was meaning that you should specify that this is one 33 species of fungus. I wonder if we have a list anywhere? That may make for a nice fungal FL... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The species formerly occurred in England" You said Great Britain above.
tweaked/see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "It has an earthy flavor and meaty texture that complements red meat dishes." I'm not keen on this in Wikipedia's neutral voice.
I tried to neutralise it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Zapotec people" Link?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look too controversial! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, providing nothing else comes up. There are still a couple of issues outstanding for me, but nothing that prevents me supporting. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and well-chosen. However, a fix does need to be made: Two are user-made and one is from Mushroom Observer and the license checks out (I lost my admin status on Commons due to their ridiculous "inactivity" rules, which means I'm unable to review the license formally- one of the tasks I did as an administrator, but not one which indicates that I'm using my administrator status, apparently) so these are fine. File:Schweinsohr-1.jpg is clearly PD, but a further licensing template is needed to confirm the author's date of death (or why the book is PD otherwise). Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fallout 4: Far Harbor[edit]

Nominator(s): Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an expansion pack for Bethesda's 2015 action role-playing game Fallout 4. I've been working on this article for just over two months and after going through two peer reviews, passing a GA review and being copyedited by the Guild of Copy Editors, I think it's finally at FA standard. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer, Czar, David Fuchs, Jaguar, and Rhain: Pinging all users who have participated in the peer reviews and the GA review. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Happy to take a look. I've played some Fallout games but never really got into them. I've sunk far more hours than I care to admit into Elder Scrolls games, though.

  • "Being an expansion pack that requires the main game, the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and V.A.T.S. systems carry over." This is tricky for someone who doesn't know the games well.
    Explained it a better
  • "the season pass price was increased" I don't understand. What's a season pass in this context? Increased relative to what? By whom?
    I've added what a season pass is in this case, but I don't understand what you mean by "Increased relative to what".
  • "Similar to the base game, in which the player character is tasked with finding their lost family,[2] Far Harbor has the player controls the Sole Survivor, who is enlisted by the Valentine Detective Agency—an company run by detective Nick Valentine—to investigate a disappearance, this time of a young girl named Kasumi." This sentence (which I've tweaked) is a bit too long. Also, I don't know what "the Sole Survivor" is.
    Cut it down a bit, is it better now?
  • "While using V.A.T.S. (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System), a feature first introduced in Fallout 3, the real-time combat is slowed, allowing the player to choose where to shoot the enemy." This is the first mention of combat or enemies. Give us context! I am left wondering how necessary these kinds of details are; discussion of the basic gameplay of Fallout is good, too many details about how combat works (unless specific to this expansion) probably are not needed.
    I've rearranged the gameplay section so that it mentions the enemy NPC before V.A.T.S., is it better now?
Comments from J Milburn that have since been addressed
  • "Weapons can also be shot at, disarming them." One does not disarm weapons, one disarms an opponent of weapons.
  • "Unlike the previous iterations" Of what?
  • "Even quests done back at the Commonwealth will affect the story" The tone's a bit off, here, and I think more explanation is needed.
    I don't remember reading about that or adding that and it's not found in the given reference so I've removed that sentence.
  • "The Island, where many of the creatures native to it reside" Huh?
    Changed to "The Island, where many creatures reside".
  • "The town uses fog condensers which turn the fog into liquid in order to protect its inhabitants, due to the creature's unwillingness to go anywhere without fog." No idea. What creature?
    Does the previous change help answer this?
    Do you mean creatures-apostrophe rather than creature-apostrophe-s? Josh Milburn (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    @J Milburn: Yes, it was fixed by ‎Prisonermonkeys. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    Uh-huh. It was written in the possessive when it should have been plural possessive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "who is against the destruction of the Church of Atom" Context?
    Reworded the sentence and removed that bit.
  • "The Children of Atom reside in an old nuclear submarine base called The Nucleus and are led by High Confessor Tektus, a fanatically devout follower of Atom who seeks to disable or destroy the fog condensers, since the Church believes that The Island is the holy land of Atom, and the contraptions' mere existence are an affront to him." Too long. Also, singular/plural confusion.
  • What are Synths? Also, Synths or synths?
    I thought I fixed that, obviously not. Fixed now. Changed all to "synths/synth".
  • "Kasumi Nakano, the person the Sole Survivor is tasked with finding, resides in Acadia." Presumably you mean to say she resided there before she went missing? You should check your other mentions of the character, too.
    She fled there. Fixed wording.
  • "The expansion starts after the end of the "Getting a Clue" quest." Context? The way you've written this, it's like you expect readers to know what this means.
  • "Children of Atom's base of Operations" operations?
  • "three main Factions there and let them decide their fate themselves" Capital F? Also, the "their" is ambiguous.
  • "dungeons" is jargon
    Don't really know how I can fix this, the reference says "dungeons".
  • "It added the largest landmass, hence the higher price compared to other DLC releases." Again, this is the first mention of a higher price. How about something like "Of the three, it added the largest landmass, and hence was sold for the highest price."
  • "The expansion was included in the Fallout 4 season pass, the price of which rose from US$30 to $50 due to the large amount of additional content." As above, I'm afraid I don't know what this means.
  • "and didn't turn out as they planned" Informal, ambiguous. Also, whose feedback? Players'?
  • "the game worked better." Informal
  • " but many, including Metro" First, I'm not keen on the personification; second, you don't cite Metro at the end of the sentence?
    I've changed it a bit. It's actually "GameCentral", but I've fixed the issues.

Gotta dash; I'll be back for more... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, back.

  • "block-related parts were compared" What are these?
    The block sections are explained in the gameplay section: In some of the puzzle rooms, the player directs lasers to hit the designated targets, and in other puzzle rooms the player builds using blocks, similar to Minecraft.
  • "Peter Brown (GameSpot) commended the addition of "hours of side quests driven by curious characters" added." ?
    Removed the "added" at the end.
  • I generally find the reception section a little repetitive. For a slightly ironic example, consider the multiple times you mention that reviewers found the game repetitive.
    I think I've fixed it.
  • "in the article by Paget" What article by Paget? This is the first mention.

From the first read-through, I feel that this is a strong article, but that the writing is a little below what is expected of FAs. I also did some copyediting (but more is needed); please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I've fixed and striked the majority of the issues you mentioned. I left a few notes under the comments I didn't understand. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Were the edits for dot points 3 and 4 sufficient or are there any more comments/questions surrounding those? I've collapsed all the other comments underneath that as I've fixed them and FACs tend to get fairly long. Feel free to revert that if you don't want it to be collapsed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Operation Infinite Reach[edit]

Nominator(s): GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the first-ever American attack against al-Qaeda: the Clinton Administration's August 20, 1998, cruise missile strikes against bin Laden's Afghan bases and a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons for militants. This GA, which incorporates international journalism, academic and popular literature, and government reports, has already received a peer review. I hope you find this interesting! GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Operation_Infinite_Reach.jpg: I don't see this image on the given source page, and the only Sudanese photos there are credited to a private company. Do you have a source to support the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: Upon further inspection, it doesn't appear that the photo was correctly attributed by its uploader (indeed, it's not on the given site); I've removed it and replaced it with a separate photo. I've also taken the liberty to upload a new, public-domain version in place of the old one. Thank you for pointing this out. GABgab 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a genus of dome-headed dinosaur (the pachycephalosaurs), and the only member of this group to ever be nominated for FAC. Since it is one of the most completely (and first) known of these dinosaurs, it has been the subject of many studies, which we have attempted to summarise here, including various theories about what the dome was used for. It is a GA, has been copyedited, and the bulk of the images are from the CC-licensed journal Plos One. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I'll butt heads with this one...comments below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if I'd use "about/around" with a dash. My thinking is "about/around" + "to" between ranges (unneeded for bracketed imperial units) or just dash..
Think I changed all. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd link bipedal and vertebral column
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd avoid starting all three paras of lead with "Steogceras.."
Better now? Changed in third paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I read through it last night and thought the rest was okay - will try to look again later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The dentition of Stegoceras was heterodont (differentiated) and thecodont (placed in sockets). - Plainer English is better where possible without losing meaning, so why not something like, "Stegoceras had teeth that were heterodont (differentiated) and thecodont (placed in sockets)."?

Otherwise looks ok I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. For accessibility, having neophytes will be good...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I was thinking the same, some of the text may be rather technical, so could be nice to have some "laymen" look over it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Gottlob Berger[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Gottlob Berger, one of Heinrich Himmler's key aides, who was responsible to a significant extent for the expansion of the Waffen-SS from a supposedly "racially pure" organisation to one which made a mockery of Hitler and Himmler's racial ideas by recruiting from almost all of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII. Berger was arrested and tried for war crimes after the war, but got off pretty lightly in the end, despite his responsibility for several significant crimes. He was also a close friend and ally of the notorious Oskar Dirlewanger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:War_Ensign_of_Germany_1903-1918.svg includes an error tag
    • I've deleted all the flag icons, I'm not a huge fan of them anyway.
  • File:Uw_plaats_is_nog_vrij_in_de_Waffen_ss.png: what is the copyright status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point, wasn't PD in The Netherlands in 1996, so not PD-US. Have replaced it with one from the Bundesarchiv. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments This is a very good article about a horrible person, and a good snapshot of the crazed empire building which was a feature of many senior Nazi officials. I have the following comments:

  • "but his organisational skills were largely responsible for the growth of the Waffen-SS to a total of 38 divisions by war's end" - this is probably too strong given that the expansion of the SS was also due to Hitler's preference for it over the Army. Berger seems to have made the "best" of this opportunity.
    • Adjusted.
  • "briefly held in custody after Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923" - did he play any role in the Putsch, or was he arrested as part of a general round up?
    • the sources don't mention any part he played in the putsch, so I assume he was just rounded up with the rest of the Nazi's.
  • "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[12] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role" - this seems a bit out of place at the end of the para
    • moved it to the end of the subsection.
  • Was Berger's duties at the outbreak of war limited to recruiting members of the SS only, or was he also involved in overseeing recruit training?
    • In September 1939 he was only the head of the recruiting department, training was the responsibility of several other departments within the SS-HA.
  • " Waffen-SS,[20] a term he coined in an agreement dated 2 March 1940.[21] He used the new term..." - I'd suggest including a translation of the term here - noting that the name means "Fighting SS" would help to illustrate why it was seen to be attractive to the other branches of the SS
    • Done. "Armed SS" is probably the more common translation.
  • The final sentences of both paras in the "The "national legions"" section are a bit too similar. It also seems a bit narrow to attribute the German failure to expand these units to administrative issues: very few people in occupied countries were willing to volunteer for the German military.
    • Tweaked the first para a bit with some more material from Stein. The willingness of people from occupied territories to enlist varied across the board, for example, the pro-German nationalists among the Dutch were fairly keen, at least early on, but the Flemish less so.
      • The wording is still a bit similar: the first of the two paras could cover the problems during recruitment and initial training, and the second the problems which arose later on? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How did Berger handle what look to be multiple full-time jobs during the war? Did he delegate the work to others, or leave it undone?
    • He had multiple department heads and a good-sized staff. I haven't seen any information indicating that he delegated any more than would have been usual for a man with multiple departmental heads, or that he failed to address any work he had. He was obviously an excellent administrator, which was probably why Himmler wouldn't give him a combat command.
      • OK, but it seems likely to me that corners would have been cut. Himmler also had lots of jobs, and didn't do most of them - the idea was to get his finger into as many pies as possible. This kind of double up and empire building was common for the senior Nazi bureaucrats, with historians noting that it messed up the processes of government, such as they were. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • When did Berger assume command of XIII SS Army Corps?
    • He didn't, his was more of a kampfgruppe command, which included the XIII SS Army Corps, itself commanded by SS-Gruppenführer Max Simon. I've tweaked it.
      • That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • More generally, it's not really clear what he did during 1945 prior to the German surrender at present - can this be fleshed out?
    • There isn't much to go on. He was obviously involved with the POW role (particularly with the Prominente), and had the kampfgruppe command as well, so they put him in the Alps. There can't have been too much going on with Waffen-SS recruiting at that stage...
      • Fair enough. Some of the other senior Nazis also went to ground at this time. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "He was convicted under that part of count three relating to the murder of French Général de division Gustave Mesny, a POW who was killed in reprisal for the death of Generalleutnant Fritz von Brodowski at the hands of the French resistance in October 1944" - this isn't mentioned earlier in the article. What was his role here? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've moved the mention up, it was a command responsibility-type charge applied to Berger because he was in charge of the POW camps at the time of Mesny's murder.

Ridge Racer (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Adam9007 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I nominated this several weeks ago, but had an incident. I believe I've fixed the issues raised at the first FAC and I'm ready to give this another shot. Adam9007 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Can't promise a full review, but I'll jot what I see.

  • The first paragraph is a little choppy. Try to vary sentence length. Read aloud!
  • "Ridge Racer got a highly positive reception" Informal.
    • Is "received" better? Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the Namco Game Sound Express Vol. 11 album" I'm not keen on imbedded interwiki links like this. Isn't there something against them in the MOS?
  • "In the PlayStation version, a mini-game of Galaxian can be played as the game loads. If won, eight additional cars become available. The cars vary in their specifications: some have a high top speed, others excel at acceleration or turning, and others present a balance. Certain cars are named after other Namco games such as Solvalou, Mappy, Bosconian, Nebulasray, and Xevious.[2][3] Once the game has loaded, the CD is needed only to play six music tracks. The disc can be replaced at any time during gameplay, although the game does not update; regardless of what disc is inserted, there will always be six tracks, corresponding to the starting points of the tracks on the game disc.[4][3]" Really? Open the gameplay section with information about cars going around tracks, not about minigames and music options!
  • "(the latter two are extended)" What does this mean?
    • The latter 2 tracks are extended. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "reversed ones become available" What does this mean?
    • Reversed race tracks become available. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "13th Racing "Devil"" I don't follow
    • It's also known as the "Devil" car. Made that clearer. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "complete it before their rivals" Before their rivals completed it? This needs explaining.
    • I need to check, but I think it means they wanted to complete it before their rivals completed their competing game. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "radical differences" ?
    • Removed "radical". Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph of development has a lot of repetition.
    • Not entirely sure what you mean, but I think I've fixed what I think you're referring to. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If you're writing in British English (though there is some disagreement about this among the FAC community) you may want to think about eliminating false titles, such as those used in "designer Fumihiro Tanaka" and "Visual director Yozo Sakagami".
  • "more analogue feel" Can one use analogue like that?
    • I need to check, but I think that's what the source says. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "didn't have enough time to produce them" First, avoid contractions. Second, them is ambiguous.
  • "but ended up producing techno, which Tanaka believed helped players to enjoy a fun feeling while playing" This needs to be reworked.
  • "Commenting on the realism, Game Informer remarked" First, I'm not keen on the personification (but I know that a lot of people don't share my view). Second, why no italics?
  • "Coming Soon Magazine praised" As above.
    • I'm not sure it's a print magazine; I've only seen it online. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You could have a think about the reception section; organising it thematically rather than by reviewer may be preferable. Mike Christie has written some hints about this, which may be helpful: User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections.
  • "Ridge Racer is mentioned in the song My Console (1999) from the Italian electronic dance group Eiffel 65.[63]" So what?
  • "A similar game is included in Ridge Racer Revolution using the same cars under the name Pretty Racer (also known as buggy mode), the inspiration for this game." I don't understand.
    • Pretty Racer was the inspiration for Pocket Racer, or at least I think that's what the source says (I need to double check). Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "under the name Ridge Racer 3D" Italics?

I've not looked at the sources and haven't looked closely at the images, but the amount of non-free content is bothering me a little. I'm left wondering precisely what the subject of this article is; is it about the PlayStation game, or both the PlayStation game and the arcade game? If the latter, it's a little light on the arcade game. (I made some edits; please double-check.) Josh Milburn (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I haven't done everything yet, but the article is about both. I'm not sure there's a lot to say about the arcade version, and the PlayStation version is based on the arcade version (the actual gameplay is the same in both versions). Do I need to get rid of any images? Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 420[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This article, which recently passed a long-overdue A-class review should be set for the star. The only significant issue that I expect to crop up is the sel-published source (SPS) that is Niagara Thunder Alley. However, I feel this source meets the reliable source criterion for SPS exceptions, in that it "may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", of which there are several.[1]. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Floydian: do you mean to transclude this? --Rschen7754 07:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Now that it's been transcluded, Support per my review at the ACR. I also did an image review. --Rschen7754 01:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Several explosions followed": That's unexpected ... what exploded?
  • "the DHO": What's that?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I hope to see more Canadian highways on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I fully support all the changes you've made, and have adjusted the text with regards to your comments. Thank you! :) - Floydian τ ¢ 23:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC); Updated at 05:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Notes by the nominator about reference formatting[edit]

This section is mostly directed at anyone who is interested in doing a review of the article citations for FA criterion 2c.

I've attempted to standardize the formatting of all references in the article as follows:

  • Page ranges are written out in an unabbreviated format (e.g., 191–194 is used in page ranges instead of 191–4) with an ndash per MOS:NDASH.
  • Journal titles use the standardized pubmed abbreviations for each journal cited. Only the abbreviated words and the last word in a journal title are followed by a period.
  • All dates use the DMY format.
    • Journal citation dates include the month (if available) and year of the text publication date, not the online publication date.
    • Book citation dates include the month and year of publication.
    • Web and database citation dates include the day, month, and year of the most recent revision that was listed prior to the access date, if available.
  • Book citations list the 13 digit ISBN without hyphens.
  • The names of the authors in all citations follows the standard pubmed author format for an author list.
    For example: "John Randomguy Doe, Bob Jeremy Frank, Jean Dumas" is written as "Doe JR, Frank BJ, Dumas J" in the author list.

Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Doc James[edit]

  • The large quotes raise copyright concerns for me. IMO quotes should be keep to less than 20 words. Lawyers from a pharma company have told me 7 but I think they were just bluffing. User:Diannaa or User:Moonriddengirl your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If there's consensus here to remove/censor the quotes, then I'm okay with this; however, I assure you that the current length of the quotes is not a copyvio concern: the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) is a database of monographs that contains literally nothing but quotations from copyrighted academic literature, copyrighted professional textbooks, or PD government websites. E.g., their entry on delta 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol is a massive page that contains nothing but excerpts that are copied verbatim from the source which is cited beneath the excerpt. PubChem transcludes almost all of HSDB's quotations to its own monographs on chemicals as well (for comparison: PubChem THC link). A number of the academic journal article quotes in the THC entry are longer than the longest quotes included in the HMB article and there's no mention in the HSDB's FAQ about obtaining permission to source their content from copyrighted publications like this; hence, the current references in the HMB article are not copyright problems if the HSDB's and PubChem's monographs aren't. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I know this is archived, but I'm only just now seeing it and hate to leave it without response. :) There is no legal "word count" limit on the size of quotations; it is entirely context dependent. For this reason, the lawyers that told you 7 from the pharma company, Doc James, were totally making stuff up, but we also can't take the precedent of databases of monographs or PubChem, Seppi333. We are neither of those sites, and our purposes and nature are very different. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text notes that "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is forbidden" - there's no specifics, because what constitutes "extensive" depends on so many factors, including the length of the source (90% of a source is "extensive" even if the quote is three sentences long), the length of the new home (90% of the article is extensive, even if the quote is a paragraph out of a 400 page book), and whether the quote is the 'heart' of the source (which is why we can't just reproduce the top 5 of creatively compiled lists, even if the list contains 100 items). There's also the larger question of whether we are building something new with the quote or using it to supersede the need to review the original - which would lend towards a finding of copyright infringement. And there are movement value questions related to the fact that we encourage broad reuse, even commercially, which is why Wikipedia has more conservative copyright attitudes than non-commercial organizations, as profit is a consideration in fair use. It's complicated and cannot be nailed down to a "We can only use X words" or even a "We can safely use X words," and we cannot use text just because some other website does. In each instance, we need to ask ourselves if our use is transformative and the minimal excerpt of the non-free content that we need to further academic advancement. (Sometimes, for instance, we don't need a quote at all and can rest with a paraphrase or summary. Sometimes, the precise quote is important.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I am well aware that the lawyers were making it up. We still however want to be conservative as lawyers can harass an organization whether they have a case or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl: Ah, I stand corrected then. Anyway, this nomination won't be archived until sometime around mid-October, so there's no issues with posting here at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nergaal[edit]

  • Oppose this is a chemical with absolutely 0 chemical information on it. I understand it is most relevant as a performance-enhancer, but that does not mean it has no chemical information about it outside physiological conditions. Also, the article does not explicitly say it is a performance-enhancer that is not controlled at all. Nergaal (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: There's very little experimental chemical data available on this compound; it was hard enough just to find an experimental mp/bp. In any event, I'm not sure what kind of chemical information you have in mind so unless you can be more specific or give examples, this is not an actionable objection.
The article does not explicitly state "it is a performance enhancer that is not controlled at all" because that statement is not made anywhere in reliable sources. It's probably true, but if I said that without a reference it would be WP:OR. Edit: to clarify, I do know of sources that make a statement about its status in specific countries (e.g., the United States), but not globally. I can address this in a region-specific manner if you think it's worth adding. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that it is used as a performance-enhancer and is a "drug" seems a bit weird to an average reader that it is not controlled. Talking about USA and EU would suffice since they tend to be the most stringent about it. Also, WADA has a list so saying that it is not on that list would be useful. Nergaal (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. In relation to other performance-enhancing drugs, its regulatory status isn't really any different from caffeine or creatine. Both are drugs (by this, I mean "pharmacologically active compounds") that are sold over-the-counter and which have well established athletic performance-enhancing effects. Caffeine is more similar in the sense that it's also used clinically in some cases, but it's not an endogenous compound like creatine. In any event, I'm willing to clarify its regulatory status; is there a particular statement that you'd like to include to address this?
  2. The lead does include the statement "As of 2015, HMB was not tested for or banned by any sporting organization in the United States or internationally.", but it doesn't specifically refer to WADA. In any event, I'll look for sources for adding a statement about whether or not it's banned by WADA; however, if their policy on banned substances is like the NCAA, their lists may not actually be comprehensive due to possible pharmacologically-related functional analogs of banned substances (aka designer drugs). There might not be sources that explicitly cover whether or not HMB is banned by WADA if that is the case, so I'll let you know what I find after I follow up on this.
  3. I have sources on hand for its regulatory control status in the US; hopefully it won't be too hard to find a source for the EU as a whole. I'll probably include this information under the "Available forms" heading after I look for an EU reference.
  4. Is there any particular information about its chemical properties that you'd like to see added? I had a difficult time finding any notable information to add from references about HMB's chemical properties. User:Boghog also mentioned that there really isn't a lot of information related to its laboratory/industrial synthesis either (see User talk:Boghog/Archive 10#Synthesis). Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Scifinder would be the best place to search for available chemical information on this compound if any of you have access to it. I can gain access to Scifinder, but that will involve me needing to update my OS so that I can get the security software needed to connect to a VPN with the university, which I won't be able to get around to for a few days. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I unfortunately don't. If you see any notable information on the the conjugate acid or the base's physical characteristics (e.g., odor, consistency/form, taste, color, etc) or a discussion/description of its chemical structure, that would be useful. Since I've seen some inconsistencies on its experimental properties between references, I also need to find a secondary source that lists its density with a reference to a primary source. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, I just remembered that HMDB includes structural classification information on compounds listed in its database, so I'll just use this - - for describing its structural class. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It'll probably be a another day or two before I get around to addressing these issues. Been busy irl. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Nergaal: I added a description of its structural classification w/ 2 images (I had to create File:Butyric acid carbons.svg for this) and a statement about it being allowed by WADA and the NCAA to the lead/body (see special:diff/735006277/735339526). With exception for a statement about the common salt(s) of the compound, which are already described in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Available forms, and a statement about its physical characteristics, which I can't seem to find a reference for, the content in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Chemistry currently mirrors amphetamine#Chemistry. I'm still working on getting sources for #3 above; have my recent changes addressed your concerns coverage of WADA and HMB's chemical properties? Edit: I found a patent reference for the state and appearance of the free acid form of HMB at room temperature (I covered this in special:diff/735332484/735339526). Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC); edited at 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: After looking for about an hour, I couldn't find any statement about the regulation of HMB which was more specific than the one made by the reference to which I added the relevant quote in this diff. I'm guessing that this is simply because nutritional supplements generally don't require approval by a regulatory agency before being marketed in a given country (as noted in the dietary supplement article). I believe that I've finished addressing your comments/concerns from above (regulatory status, permitted use by NCAA/WADA, and chemistry-related information) with the addition of this material. Are you satisfied with the current changes that I've made and do you have any other comments/objections about the current article content? Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Jytdog[edit]

First, wow, clearly a lot of work went into this. Thanks for all that work! Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Zefr[edit]


Although adequately written and structured, the article doesn't meet the criteria for GA/FA status. Author/nominator (A/N) User:Seppi333 has worked diligently to produce a scholarly article, but there are numerous concerns and disqualifiers for GA/FA.

Mainly, the topic is given WP:UNDUE weight, and is not notable in any FA portal: publicly, HMB is simply a dietary supplement with unproven effect, so does not qualify for Medicine, Sports or Science FA portals. HMB is a natural metabolite and dietary nutraceutical only, and is not a topic sufficiently notable for GA/FA attention.

The section on Clinical research underlies two problems: firstly, the evidence to date for efficacy in treating sarcopenia or for muscle enhancement is far from adequate for regulatory approval, and therefore also is weak or absent of WP:MEDRS sourcing. All the research on HMB cited is WP:PRIMARY and published in non-clinical journals, so has not been subjected to sufficient scientific rigor. HMB is not approved as a drug for treating sarcopenia and is not physiologically or pharmacologically proven to have have any effect, consequently rendering it inadequately tested by scientific rigor.

Secondly, A/N appears to be a user of the product and promotes its efficacy, suggesting bias in content emphasized and sources selected.

Conclusion with comments for FA administrators: 1) included among the criteria for GA/FA status should be that the topic is notable. HMB is not notable, is not approved by regulatory agencies as an effective, safe drug for use in humans, and is little more than a nutraceutical fad for would-be athletes like innumerable other dietary supplements; 2) included among the GA/FA criteria should be that an article cannot be promoted for evaluation by the same person who wrote most of the article. In other words, only an independent editor who has not worked substantially on the article, but who has expertise, should nominate for GA/FA review. In the case of HMB, all the pushing for FA approval is being done by the article's main author who is also a promotional user of the supplement.

Comments on content (A/N, author and nominator are the same)

1. A/N has accounted for > 95% of the content and is alone in promoting it for rapid consent first as a GA candidate, but then without due process and few signs of interest or confirmation by fellow editors, promoted it alone to FA review.

2. in the HMB article itself, there has been little/no cross-fertilization of content, sources and interpretation. Possible reasons for this isolation of editor input are 1) the topic is not generally of interest and/or 2) A/N has a history of aggressively defending and warring over one particular view, discouraging collaboration. Signs of non-collaborative behavior are here and here.

3. A/N is an advocate of using HMB for performance-enhancement and admits bias, indicating underlying WP:SOAP and WP:PLUG which should disqualify a GA/FA candidate.

4. the article has imbalance and verges on WP:OR, particularly in the Clinical research section. There are no counter-intuitive discussions about why HMB has no value. A likely reason is that negative outcomes from research on nutraceuticals are unpublishable, and the only remaining evidence for non-effect comes from personal accounts that are not WP:SCIRS. Publication of zero-effect results on true drug candidates is a critical part of winnowing candidate human therapies. The same standards should apply to supplements of questionable value like HMB.

5. even for the literature cited, there is too much falling within WP:PRIMARY. The reviews cited are mainly of poor quality having been published in non-clinical journals. There is overuse of sports journals which are infamously unscientific and poorly edited, or nutrition journals which may be an outlet of marginal credibility for nutraceuticals.

On balance, there is little if any WP:MEDRS quality in the topic or sources.

6. Accordingly, the section on Pharmacology really isn't of a high quality pertaining to human mechanisms.

7. The lede is a burden to wade through for the general user. It is heavily over-cited and over-quoted per WP:OVERCITE.

GA/FA criteria:

1. well-written: Generally, yes. Major caveats are that the lede is laborious as not concise with obsessive/excessive use of quotes throughout which may discourage encyclopedic review by a general reader.

2. verifiable: dubious, as negative/counter-intuitive results are not reported or are unavailable. Emphasis on the topic is WP:UNDUE. The content reflects bias and the sources are not of MEDRS standard.

3. broad in coverage. Generally yes, but counter-intuitive arguments are absent and negative analyses are not provided.

4. NPOV. No, as only one perspective that is favorable and detectably promotional is provided. The "clinical evidence" purported for use of HMB to treat sarcopenia is overstated, under-supported by WP:MEDRS, not accepted by any regulatory agency as an approved drug, and is not in common practice.

5. stable. The article appears to be stable largely because there has been one major contributor, A/N, writing more than 95% of the content. Controversial or contested editing has been aggressively reverted by A/N, discouraging collaboration.

6. media. Appear to be ok.

To conclude, A/N should be commended for the hard work of assembling information on HMB. Relevant advice, however, is here. The article and its topic are not notable and the sourcing quality falls far short of GA status, so is certainly not FA. --Zefr (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zefr: Many of the concerns you've raised, as described, are a bit too vague for me to act on at the moment; can you be more specific as to what text/references in the article are problematic (i.e., quote the problematic statement or link the reference(s) to which you're referring) so that we can start to address the issues here?
  • W.r.t. your concern about potential NPOV/UNDUE content in the article, I'm not really sure what particular viewpoint from medical literature that you believe is missing or underrepresented in the article; however, if you can link me to a medical source with the viewpoint which you're asserting isn't being given WP:DUE weight, I'd be happy to cover it in the article.
  • W.r.t. your concerns about MEDRS-compliance with the sources in the section on clinical research: the pubmed ID numbers of the medical literature which is cited in the section on muscle wasting are PMID 27106402 PMID 26169182 PMID 27324808 PMID 26010896 and PMID 24336486; Pubmed indicates that every one of these papers is a "Review", as listed under the heading titled "Publication types", on the associated pubmed pages for these articles. The oldest of these reviews was published in 2014, so I'm not sure which MEDRS criterion you're referring to when you say these sources aren't MEDRS-compliant. Could you link me to the MEDRS section/criterion (e.g., a link like WP:MEDDATE) that you believe there is an issue with for each source so that we can discuss/address the problem with these sources?
    • If you feel there's issues with any of the other sources in the article, can you link it/them here and indicate the specific problem with it/them so that we can discuss and address the problem with those references as well?
  • W.r.t. lead citations, as I mentioned in my comment at the very beginning of this nomination, I'd be happy to move the citations into end-of-paragraph citation notes. Would you like me to do this?
  • W.r.t. the other objections you've raised, can you be a little more specific and indicate a particular statement and/or reference when you mention an issue with a policy/guideline or FAC criterion? I'm not really sure how to begin going about addressing any of your other concerns that involve a policy/guideline/criterion because they're nonspecific.
Your statements about my editing behavior and alleged bias aren't relevant to this nomination, so I'm not going to address those comments.
Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I would think the notability requirement simply means the subject must meet WP:N. The subject clearly does (otherwise we'd have to purge most of our chemical articles). Sizeofint (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sizeofint: Zefr and I don't like one another, which is why the above blob of text is a really long-winded WP:JDL statement about the article and diatribe about me. Objections at FAC are supposed to be specific enough to be actionable so that the nominator can attempt to address the objection (this is stated in bold text in the instructions for reviewers at WP:FAC), but his objections are so vague/non-specific that it's not possible to identify specific sentences or references that he claims fail to satisfy WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:OR, etc or identify the content/references that are supposedly missing from the article. For example, an actionable objection for NPOV would be something like "the statements in section 'X' are NPOV because they do not cover the alternate viewpoint 'Y' in source 'Z'. I need to know all 3 of those things to act on an objection on the grounds of NPOV. Even if the FAC coordinators don't ignore this section, which seems extremely unlikely unless he engages in a discussion and replies with more specific objections, one outstanding oppose won't prevent this article from being promoted (e.g., amphetamine had 2). So, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to him why some of his assertions (like "All the research on HMB cited is WP:PRIMARY" or "the topic [(HMB)] is given WP:UNDUE weight, and is not notable") are completely asinine or nonsensical; he's just trying to be a dick, but isn't doing a particularly good job at it.
@Zefr: Since this appears to be your very first involvement in a FAC nomination, either as nominator or reviewer, you should probably read my reply to Sizeofint. Also, FAC reviews are not simply support/oppose votes; they're dialogues between reviewer and nominator. If you oppose the nomination, your rationale should be composed of objections that I can directly address. You are also expected to respond to me and vice versa so that I can work on addressing those objections until the problems are resolved and the nomination merits support. If you actually care enough to give this article a real review, you'll need to read the instructions at WP:FAC for reviewers and should probably also read User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates before responding here so that you know what is expected of you. You don't have to respond to me, but if you don't I will leave a note for the FAC coordinators at the top of this section to let them know about this. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Zefr: I have to agree with Seppi that your review is too harsh; I hope you reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
agree w/ Jytdog(as an individual who has taken article to GA [2](and considering FA)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do not intend to give stepwise revisions of the HMB article because 1) as simply a dietary supplement among hundreds of similar agents with dubious qualities, HMB is a minor, low-notability topic not deserving of GA/FA review. Unless there is a content issue worthy of further evaluation, I will not be returning to this discussion. 2) it is unpleasant to interact with the author/nominator of the HMB article, User:Seppi333, who seems incapable of constructively dealing with criticism, e.g., saying firstly (and fairly) in response to my review: "Your statements about my editing behavior and alleged bias aren't relevant to this nomination, so I'm not going to address those comments." then later addressing my critique: "he's just trying to be a dick." WP:EQ, WP:NPA.

Secondary comments further supporting opposition:

1. Lede overciting and overquoting: MOS:LEADCITE and throughout the article, WP:CITEKILL

2. Sources on muscle wasting and performance enhancement. The supporting publications in the HMB article are in non-clinical or low-quality journals, filled with speculation, exaggeration and lack of rigorous scientific evidence (a characteristic commonly applied in the marketing of many dietary supplements), and are not MEDRS quality because they do not satisfy the same requirements for proof of efficacy that a drug must meet. An enteral agent producing a change in human disease or physiology is defined as a drug by the FDA. HMB is not a drug; it is simply a supplement with unproven effects like all supplements, and is subject to labeling restrictions defined here. HMB is not a nutrient, not an antioxidant vitamin, does not have a structure/function claim, and does not have any FDA-approved health claims, so by regulatory definition does not have any proven physiological effects in humans. Existing literature for HMB does not meet good-quality MEDRS standards.

3. MEDRS qualification. Sources in the HMB article do not meet good MEDRS qualities by definition under WP:MEDASSESS which says: "When writing about treatment efficacy, knowledge about the quality of the evidence helps distinguish between minor and major views, determine due weight, and identify accepted evidence-based information." HMB literature doesn't qualify by this definition, and leads to WP:UNDUE and the qualifications of WP:MEDINDY. All of the 5 statements in MEDINDY apply to the scientific vagueness about HMB, most appropriately "If independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant for mention in other articles."

When using a flowchart for choosing MEDRS quality sources under "Biomedical journals", those sources in the HMB article for "medical" and "performance enhancement" fall under "Other", i.e., low quality, further demonstrating the overall weakness and low notability of HMB as a topic.

4. Not "medical" and not a medical food. This new revision in the HMB article entered on 23 Aug is wrong and misleading to a Wikipedia user. HMB is simply an ingredient in a supplement product not proved as an effective medicine or medical food. HMB itself is not independently proven to be effective for this purpose, and is neither a medical food nor a drug ("medicine"); it is one among many ingredients in dietary supplement products not proven individually to be effective for muscle wasting (hence none is defined as a drug). "Medical food" is a specific FDA designation here, not applicable to HMB itself. Such references to the use of HMB as a medicine or as having any physiological effect should be removed from the article as unproven, misleading, not FDA approved and not MEDRS compliant. --Zefr (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Zefr what are you talking about on the medical food thing? There are at least two products that are medical food and HMB is the ingredient driving the claims. What exactly is your issue with that? And there is nothing in the GA or FA standards about how "important" something is - we have FAs on silly video games and TV shows. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The article and its topic are not notable." Seriously? Good luck at AfD... Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Zefr: I asked for you to give me specific actionable feedback associated with your objections three times. I didn't ask for "stepwise revisions of the HMB article". Your response is simply a restatement of the feedback you've already given me.
  1. Your objection about the lead citations is something that I can act upon; I asked you a question in my response above about addressing this. I'm still waiting for an answer.
  2. I don't see HMB covered in any of the FDA links that you provided; what statement would you use them to cite in the article? The article doesn't include or cite any manufacturing labeling claims, make an assertion about any form of regulatory approval by any governmental agency, or even call the compound a "drug". As for the statement "existing literature for HMB does not meet good-quality MEDRS standards", I disagree. The literature cited in the article clearly surpasses MEDRS standards.
  3. You've repeatedly claimed that everything cited in the article in relation to clinical uses and effects is WP:UNDUE and therefore some form of minority viewpoint. And yet, you haven't cited a single source supporting some mysterious "majority perspective" which I somehow can't find in medical literature that supports your assertion that the scientific consensus on the clinical effects of HMB are different than what is stated in the article.
  4. The USFDA doesn't wave around a wand and magically grant biological effects to or remove them from a compound based upon outcomes in its approval process. Moreover, neither WP:MEDRS nor MOS:MED/MOS:PHARM mention the USFDA even once, so I don't see where you're getting the idea that the USFDA is somehow the highest-quality source for medical statements (MEDRS explicitly states that meta-analyses of RCTs are the best medical sources for statements about treatment efficacy) or that the USFDA should be cited to support medical claims; frankly, there's really no reason for the USFDA to be cited at all in this article because they don't host any literature about the compound on their website. If HMB had some form of regulatory approval in the United States, then I'd probably cite the USFDA to make a statement about that. A few of the sources that Jytdog provided above in his review - the same ones he used to add a sentence on this to the article yesterday - do indeed assert that two products which contain HMB are medical foods. Your FDA source doesn't appear to mention HMB anywhere, so I don't see where you get the idea that the FDA makes a contradictory assertion.
  • Anyway, it's not possible for me to address any of your concerns with exception for the one about lead citations because your FAC review is not a MEDRS-quality source which I can cite in the article and you haven't provided any sources about HMB that I can use to cite content in the article that supports your assertions about its clinical efficacy. If your intent is to have me delete any/all the content to which you object, my answer is no; I won't do anything like that without a consensus among several editors. I am, however, willing to add content that you specify provided that you give me a source which directly supports the statement and satisfies the appropriate reliable sources guideline(s) for that content. I'll revisit these objections if you link me to a source that I can use to cite new article content which supports your assertions. There's really nothing that I can do otherwise.
  • As for the lead citations, if you'd like me to change the citation formatting as I've described in my initial response, let me know. I'm still willing to make that change.
  • Lastly, I think it might help this review go more smoothly if you read and follow the advice in the essay titled WP:DONTBEADICK. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Question is this oppose actually valid? IMO if something passes AFD then can definitely be FA. An obscure metabolite is in no way less notable than an obscure 10-km highway. Nergaal (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: It's really for the coordinators alone to decide, but my guess is no. I don't expect to receive a fair FAC review from Zefr due to the fact that he and I dislike one another as a result of past confrontations.
I don't think that this compound is really that obscure relative to some of the related more recognizable biological compounds though; e.g., this search on google scholar using 8 common synonyms of the HMB acid/base finds about 15% of the total number of publications found from a search using 9 common synonyms of beta-hydroxybutyric acid and its conjugate base - the latter compound is quite notable for its biological role in ketosis and ketoacidosis. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Edit: That comparison to the number of publications on beta-hydroxybutyric acid probably wasn't a good example; the latter search seems to include a lot of structural derivatives of beta-hydroxybutyrate in the search results. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sizeofint[edit]

  • Support on Media
    • Acceptable copyright status - Images from scientific journals have appropriate CC-BY licenses. Other images are appropriately licensed original works by editors. All images appear to have relevant author and publication date information.
    • Captions - Images are succinctly and descriptively captioned. Perhaps change "(i.e., the number of micromoles in a liter of blood plasma)" to "(in units of micromoles per liter of blood plasma)" or similar. I don't think the "i.e." is necessary. Image captions are referenced when needed.
    • Images used where appropriate - Is there a appropriately licensed image of HMB as a salt, free-acid, or one of its available forms?
    • Image layout - Image placement is logical and doesn't cause unsightly collisions.

Sizeofint (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sizeofint: Thanks for taking on an image review.
"HMB free acid" refers to the compound "beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid" (i.e., the acid w/o any inactive moieties attached to the molecule), so File:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid.svg is an image of HMB free acid. This image is currently used in the drugbox and a similar PNG image is used in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Chemistry. There is an image of the calcium salt form on commons (File:Calcium hydroxymethylbutyrate skeletal.svg), but it uses a different convention for illustrating the location of the beta-hydroxy group on the compound relative to how it's illustrated throughout the article; this is why I decided not to use it. I could probably get someone to redraw the image using the convention used throughout the article if you think it's worth adding an image of the calcium salt. I'm not familiar with the programs specified in MOS:CHEM/Structure for creating structure drawings, otherwise I'd do this myself. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: I've edited that image caption per your suggestion. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333: I am more referring to the physical form of HMB, not so much structure diagrams. The article describes HMB-FA as a "transparent, colorless to light yellow liquid" at room temperature. I am curious if there is an image of this physical form or its calcium salt available anywhere. Sizeofint (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sizeofint: Oh. I don't think there's any images of the pure free acid or calcium salt forms available anywhere online. While it would be easy enough to just take a picture of a commercial product as a tablet or after emptying a capsule or gel cap, they include a lot of fillers and bindings agents so that probably wouldn't be too informative for the "Chemistry" section. If you thought something like this might be useful for the "Available forms" section, I could take a picture of a commercially available formulation containing the calcium salt easily enough. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be worthwhile. It's not anything that will hold up my support though. Sizeofint (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Sizeofint: Alright, I can do that. I'll take a picture of a few of the capsules and a pile of the powderized contents of this formulation - ASIN B000GIPJ16 - in natural lighting sometime during daylight hours tomorrow. I'll ping you again after I've uploaded the image and added it to the article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Neal Dow[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Neal Dow, the "Napoleon of Temperance". Dow was a politician and orator who spent his life in pursuit of a single goal: banning the consumption alcohol. In the process, he made and broke political alliances, alienated neighbors and friends, and generally made himself obnoxious to everyone he encountered, but he was (briefly) successful in imposing the first statewide prohibition law in the United States. I hope you enjoy the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Nikkimaria. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments Interesting article on a figure I didn't know much about. My usual quibbles (part 1):

  • Should his state legislative service be included in the infobox?
  • Yes? I don't usually bother with the infoboxes (they tend to sprout on their own). But I'll add it if you want.
  • "Dow retired from the military " I would say resigned as you do in the body.
  • Fixed.
  • "and the daughter of a prosperous Maine family headed by her prominent grandfather, Hate-Evil Hall." Leaving aside the breathtaking cognomen, "daughter' and "grandfather" don't mesh well.
  • changed to "a member"
  • "Friends school" possibly the term "Friends" as an alternate for Quaker could be introduced in a way that makes it clear they are synonyms. Also, I'm not sure you "attend" "further schooling".
  • Done
  • Can we have a year that Dow entered the work force by getting his hides tanned?
  • Ha, done.
  • Can steam power really be described as "new technology" in the 1820s? Even in Portland?
  • One the one hand, it had been developed a long time before, but on the other, no one else in Portland was using it for tanning. I just cut the word "new".
  • "out of a Quaker belief in pacifism." I would strike the word "a" to make it clearer this was a widely-held view in the religion.
  • Done
  • "now a museum administered by the local chapter of the Women's Christian Temperance Union" I would say inline what the museum is memorializing.
  • Done
  • 1832 presidential election. Did JQA really run? Our article says he wanted to but was too unpopular to get a nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You're right, and the source mentions Clay, not Adams (Dow disliked Clay for his reputation as a dualist!). Fixed.
  • "In the 19th century, the average American" isn't the entire century a bit of a broad brush to be painting with?
  • Clarified that this was meant as an average (I was trying to avoid using the singular).
  • A brief sampling of the evils the prohibitionists hoped to prevent might not be a bad idea. The fact that workingmen got paid in rum isn't sufficient.
  • I added some details.
  • "who made their own organization" possibly "formed" for "made"
  • Done
  • "a similar law ... they continued to be defeated". Tense mismatch
  • Fixed
  • "and came to detest the Democrats as the tools of the alcohol industry" I would strike the "the" before "tools"
  • Fixed.
  • "prosecutions were deferred" possibly "halted" for "deferred"
  • I changed it to "deferred indefinitely," which seems to be what Byrne is getting at.
  • " he lobbied the state legislature ... They did so" tense issue
  • Fixed
  • "He and his detractors engaged in anonymous newspaper campaigns against one another," maybe "both Dow and his opponents engaged in anonymous newspaper campaigns against the other,"
  • OK, changed.
  • "Maine Temperance Society, William P. Fessenden." I might give him the false title, "future senator"
  • Done
  • "promised effects" better, "promised benefits"
  • Done
  • "Dow had backed some of Peck's borrowing" I would say "guaranteed" for backed if this is like I suspect a McKinley 1893 situation.
  • Yes, it is. Didn't know if guarantees were too technical. Changed.
  • "In September 1860, he declined to run for re-election" Wasn't that when the election was held (As goes Maine ...)? Presumably his decision had to be at some point before that?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarified.
  • OK, I'm finished up to here. Thanks for the thorough review so far! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "outbreak of Civil War" why the caps? And why no pipe? There's no link to the war in the area.
  • Fixed.
  • "He also confiscated property from nearby planters, including those who supported the Union, and tried unsuccessfully to claim salvage rights over Confederate military property abandoned in the river.[70]" salvage rights on his own behalf or on the U.S.'s?
His own! I clarified.
  • "In October 1862, Dow was given command over the District of Pensacola, and moved to join other units there.[70] He immediately earned the troops' disfavor by placing Pensacola under prohibition" He was provost marshal for Pensacola or what was his role?
  • The source just says "Dow received Butler's order to take command of the District of Pensacola". I'll see if I can find something more specific.
  • Not really necessary. I wasn't clear on the chain of command. I'd make it clear it was Butler's order, that explains how Butler could countermand.
  • "Butler soon countermanded the orders" for what? Prohibition or the slave liberations/property confiscations?
  • Confiscation. I clarified it.
  • Link US Grant.
  • Done
  • Dow's travels as a prisoner were wide enough to make me wonder how he was taken. Train?
  • Wagon and train, according to Byrne.
  • Did Dow give any sort of parole?
  • The source doesn't say so. I think because he was exchanged, he could have returned to the fighting if he wanted to. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the 1874 UK election, did he give speeches? I'm not clear on what his "effort" was.
  • Yes, speeches and some "organizing" (not terribly well defined in the source). Added it.
  • "Maine's legislature strengthened the weak prohibition law there by banning distilling in the state" the last state of play was repeal. For the sake of continuity, you might want to say something like "Maine's legislature had enacted a weak prohibition law in 18xx; thanks to Dow's influence ..."
  • I think the last thing I wrote on the subject was "Maine passed a new, much milder Maine Law in 1858..."
  • "and disappointed at their failure to enforce Reconstruction in the South" I'd say, if possible, what specifically disappointed him.
  • Byrne is not much more specific ("failing to protect the rights of Southern Negroes") but I added that.
  • "James Black's request that his name be placed in nomination for the presidency at the 1880 convention." Two issues. James who? and "his" is uncertain.
  • Fixed (Black is linked in the previous section).
  • "The convention that met in Cleveland that June welcomed delegates from twelves states" typo (doing this offline)
  • Done.
  • "Dow himself did not attend, staying home with his ailing wife" well, this was hardly unusual, and the reader should probably be told that in that day, candidates stayed away from the convention. Although you do more work with the minor parties than I do and perhaps things were different.
  • I think it was different--Weaver attended the Greenback convention that same year (so did Garfield attend the RNC, of course, but that's different since he was a dark horse). Still, it's worth noting.
  • Are there sites etc in Portland or elsewhere with a Dow connection worthy of mention?
  • Other than his house, I don't think so. I'll double check, though.
A most interesting article on someone I'm glad to know more about.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Dow is an interesting, quarrelsome man. I enjoyed learning more about him, myself. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank[edit]

Nominator(s): Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Image review

  • File:Leo_Frank_Signature.png needs a license tag for the original work
  • File:FrankLynchedLarge.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know he died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking this over. The Signature image has a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag already, but if there's another specific tag I need please let me know which one it is. For the lynching one, I replaced the 70 years tag with a US one, so that the death date of the photographer doesn't matter. If there's anything else, feel free to make the edits directly or let me know below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The CC tag on the signature covers the derivative work - the reproduction by tracing - of the signature, but it does not cover the original signature. That is quite likely PD, but I don't know for certain which tag would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a PD-US tag here, but I'm not sure if there is a proper way to format the page. I tried to say that the original is PD and the derivative is CC4, but if there's a better way to do it feel free to edit that page. This is my first FAC, so I'm still learning some of the finer points. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Any formatting is fine so long as it's clear, and I think yours meets that standard. However, that tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation, which means we need to know where you traced it from to ensure that requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a link to this document, where I traced the signature from the second page. As this is a notarized petition to a government agency, I believe it should be adequate for "publication", but please let me know if this is incorrect. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

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

  • It might be worth skimming through the GA review, which was when we rewrote and added significant amounts of text. The reviewer, SilkTork, also expressed some concerns about the length, although he also requested additional detail in several areas. We did some trimming then and made an effort not to add details that were trivial. Of course, there could still be material that would be better off removed, so if you have any specific recommendations once you finish the article I'm all ears. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A five-paragraph lead is contrary to the MoS recommendation of a maximum four. Overall I think the lead is a little overdetailed; it should be a very concise summary of the subject with the details confined to the text. The first paragraph is fine, but I think the remained should be condensed into three shorter paragraphs. In particular, the final paragraph could be reduced to a single sentence, since these various adaptations are all given in the text.
  • I went ahead and implemented your recommendation regarding the final paragraph. Reading the rest of it, and knowing the case, it seems compressed to me already, and taking more out would leave out important details. But I'm open to any other recommendations if you think it's still too long. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "His legal case" → "His trial"?
  • In the fourth paragraph you don't date the march of the 1,200, so "two months later" is indefinable.
  • I rewrote this a little based on what was in the body. 1,200 specifically isn't mentioned in the body, nor in a couple sources I looked at, so I went ahead and took this out. I added the date of the kidnapping and lynching, as this is important and wasn't mentioned in the lead before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Social and economic conditions
  • "had been going through" → "was undergoing"
  • I'll call your suggestion and raise you an "underwent" (unless you insist otherwise). Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "a failing rural situation" is somewhat inelegant. I'd reword the whole sentence as follows: "To serve a growing urban economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the increasingly impoverished countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in "squalid slums". The terem "squalid slums" is not worth quotation marks; use a slight paraphrase, e.g. filthy, sordid, wretched.
  • I reworded this sentence and took out the quotes in favor of a different phrasing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite their success, they recognized themselves as a 'people apart', which left them 'with a pervasive sense of anxiety' ". Again there are quotes wrapped around fairly mundane phrases, without attribution, and again it would be better to paraphrase. As a rule, direct quotes should be used sparingly, when particularly arresting phrasing is used, and should be attributed unless the source is obvious from the context.
  • "One of their responses..." – "strategies" rather than "responses"
  • "enhance the image of Jews in the dominant society" – another unattributed and paraphrasable quote.
  • I rephrased the first part of the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The Marx quote beginning "In isolated instances..." is followed by two footnotes but is not itself cited.
  • This is referenced in the same page as the first footnote, so I went ahead and added a named reference to clarify. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Leo Frank
  • "Frank's northern culture and Jewish faith added to the sense that he was different" – do you mean added to his sense, or a general sense?
  • A general sense, although I'm not quite sure how to modify the sentence to clarify that. Feel free to take a stab at it, or reply below with suggested text. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Mary Phagan
  • Can you give more details of the nature of Mary's work at the pencil factory?
  • I mentioned that she operated a machine used to insert erasers into pencils. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open across where the vulva would be." I would end this sentence at "torn open"; the remaining detail is overspecific and unnecessary.
Police investigation
  • "Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands..." – whose description of Frank's behavior is this?
  • "...and asking questions before the police could answer" – I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely, questions always precede amswers?
  • This quote from the Oney book should clarify the previous two comments:

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

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

Mr. Frank seemed to be extremely nervous. His questions were jumpy ... His voice was a refined voice ... kind of lady-like ... He was rubbing his hands ... He seemed to be excited.
  • Frank tells the police that he did not recognise the name Mary Phagan, but later says Phagan was in his office between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m on Saturday? Is this not contradictory?
  • This is addressed in the "despite" quote below. The reason it says "despite" is that if Frank knew that someone else knew Phagan, that would mean that he also knew Phagan. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Despite claiming he did not know Phagan the day before, Frank told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..." This is not a "despite" sentence. I think the required sense is something like: "Having claimed the day before that he personally did not know Phagan, Frank now told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..."
  • "Jim Conley, the janitor at the factory, was arrested on May 1 and would remain in custody until the trial." This sentence seems premature, given that the next section is entirely devoted to Conley.
  • I removed this sentence, as this fact is indeed in the next section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I do apologise for the delay in resuming this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll try to get to it today, and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hands Across Hawthorne[edit]

Nominator(s): --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a protest in Portland, Oregon, in reaction to an assault against a gay couple. Shortly after its June 2011 creation, the article was reviewed by User:Finetooth (see this talk page discussion) and User:Wasted Time R (see the good article review). In addition, it received two reviews by members of the Guild of Copy Editors (User:GeneralizationsAreBad and User:Twofingered Typist) in June 2016 and a peer review from User:Pax85 earlier this month. This article is shorter than most FAs, but I've seen others that are even shorter. I figured I would be bold and see if this article can be promoted to FA status. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I hope this passes FAC; I'd like to see it on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am fine with your edits. Much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Depending on your point of view either one of the earliest works of art with an explicitly feminist theme, or an early antecedent of torture porn, Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed is a genuine oddity of art history, and not just for that ungainly title. It was intended to inspire in viewers a belief in women's rights, a rejection of the then-prevalent notion that it was the duty of women to obey their husbands in all things, and an understanding of the then-radical concept that women had a right to use violence to defend themselves against an abusive husband. Unfortunately none of the audience actually realised this, and it was almost universally considered an attempt to slip a piece of creepy and violent pornography into the mainstream. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: other than a couple of newspaper reviews, the sources for this are identical to those on the just-promoted The Dawn of Love, and the most recent image used dates from 1870.

Comments from JM[edit]

How interesting. Happy to take a read.

  • To parrot Tim, who was responsible for converting me, false titles are sometimes considered non-standard in British English; I'll note them in my review and you are free to change them if you agree with me that it's better to do without them.
    • "by English artist William Etty"
    • "by horse dealer Robert Vernon"
  • I've never agreed with Tim about false titles; while it may have been unacceptable in the 1920s when Fowler's was written, it's become the standard practice now on both sides of the Atlantic (as I write this, the first sentence on the BBC News website begins "Rower Katharine Granger makes history…"). It's not something I feel strongly about either way, if anyone wants to add "the"s, but I consider them redundant and archaic-looking. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "their bedroom" is ambiguous
  • Agreed, reworded to "the couple's bedroom". ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Would "chattel" be preferable to "chattels"? I'm not certain. chattels jars with me a little.
  • I thought so as well until I actually came to check this; I always thought "chattel" was one of those words like "fish" or "sheep" which formed its own collective noun, but I think that's because I subconsciously confused it with "cattle". Every dictionary from the OED down to Wiktionary concurs that the plural is "chattels"—the OED even specifically says that "chattel" as a a collective noun is obsolete. The OED also notes that when used in the sense of A movable possession; any possession or piece of property other than real estate or a freehold (as is the case here), it's generally only used in the pluralised form. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "one of a number of paintings given by Vernon to the nation" Some may struggle to understand what is meant, here.
  • Do you mean the "a number of" or "to the nation"? We do actually know the number (157), but I didn't want to overwhelm the lead with figures if possible given that this comes shortly after "45.1 by 55.9 cm (17.8 by 22.0 in)" and a bunch of dates. Basically, Vernon gave his art collection to the Crown to display wherever they saw fit, rather than to a particular gallery or institution. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "England, England" Could one of these perhaps be replaced by something like "the nation"?
  • Removed the first altogether, as it's obvious from the context where is meant. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "in the nude" Would "in nudes" be better? "in the nude" would typically "naked".
  • "The nude" is an artwork including a nude figure, "nudes" are the specific individual figures within a composition. From the context, there's no realistic possibility that readers will assume that what's meant is that he painted with his clothes off. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "he told him he agreed about her beauty" that he agreed?
  • Added ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "somewhat obscure subject" I think that is a compound adjective, meaning that it should be somewhat-obscure.
  • Removed the "somewhat" altogether, as a superfluous word. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Etty painted Nyssia directly from life" I defer to you, but surely he couldn't paint Nyssia directly from life, as he never saw the living Nyssia. the figure of Nyssia, perhaps?
  • Changed to "painted Nyssia directly from a life model" (although I'd hope the reader already figured this out) ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Literary Gazette condemned the work" This is not a universally-shared view, but I personally think of this as undue personification. How about "The work was condemned in The Literary Gazette"? Or else name the critic, if known, and attribute the view to her. (Also with La Belle Assemblée, and with The Art Journal in the lead and Vanity Fair in the legacy section.)
  • This was the early 19th century; the concept of bylines didn't exist. Reviews in this period are invariably attributed to the publication, not to the reviewer, and once a publication had established that it liked/disliked something the other writers from that publication would adhere to that line. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is Female Bathers Surprised by a Swan notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  • I could possibly write a very short stub on it, but it's unlikely that one could ever write anything that will be of any use to anyone; I don't really want to create a sea of redlinks (Etty was famously prolific, and well over 800 works survive), so I've only been linking specific works as and when I write the articles. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "behave in front of picture's" {{sic}}? (Great quote, by the way!)
  • No,my sloppiness, fixed ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That's about his Penitent Magdalen paintings, and doesn't relate to this piece. (I mention his relationship with the Catholic Church briefly in William Etty, but don't want to give it undue weight; out of over a thousand works painted, only five were Magdalens, and all those are more an illustration of Etty's habit of adding elements to his nude studies to allow him to sell them as history paintings, than of any great religious conviction; while in these cases he stuck a crucifix in their hands and called them Magdalens, he was just as likely to add some chains and call her Andromeda or overpaint some clothes and a bunch of grapes and call her a bacchante.) ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why do you not provide a full citation for Herodotus? The wording will differ depending on translation.
  • To my astonishment, Wikipedia actually has a standardised format for citing Herodotus, so I just followed that. (The citation to Herodotus is only in case someone thinks I'm misrepresenting the original Candaules legend, so it doesn't really matter which translation it uses as the story itself doesn't change.) ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I've no doubt I'll be supporting in the future. Did you know, by the way, that Gyges has considerable fame in the world of philosophy due to Plato's story about him? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, as long as nothing else arises; happy with the replies. I note that the confusion I mentioned was about "to the nation"; I certainly got the gist of it, but I suspect others might not. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, with my usual caveat that I am anything but expert in the visual arts. So glad JM's prod above alerted me to this review. From my layman's point of view the article covers everything I should like to see, including analysis, views pro and con, influences on and of, and history from origin to present day. Thoroughly and widely referenced, and of course beautifully illustrated. More meo I have a few stylistic niggles, but nothing to affect my support.

  • False titles – we can agree to differ and I certainly don't press the point, but the current British style guides on my shelves etc still dismiss the f.t. as tabloidese. Mind you, the guides so dismissing the construction include those of The Guardian and the BBC, which, as in the case of the latter you rightly point out, are widely ignored by contributors and undetected by the subeditors – if such there be – of the online sites. As a sexagenarian Englishman I am probably in the last wave of resistance to this, or many another, Americanism. I just find it naff, but nobody could call it inaccurate or incomprehensible, and as you disagree with me I leave it at that.
  • "was bought by horse dealer Robert Vernon, who had made a fortune supplying horses to the military" – too many horses? This would work as well and more concisely if you omitted "horse dealer".
    Agreed, since if he's selling horses he's obviously a horse dealer. Removed. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "a painting so controversial becoming government property was a source of some embarrassment" – to whom? (There is also a grammatical point about gerunds here, but life is too short and the point can lie undisturbed as far as I'm concerned.)
    Basically, the National Gallery didn't want to put it on public display as they thought putting something this tacky alongside Turner, Constable and co demeaned the English School, but didn't want to upset Vernon by insulting his taste and shoving it in a drawer. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the ... Tate Gallery, where it remains" – perhaps (WP:DATED) an "as at 2016" or similar might be prudent here?
    Done, although realistically it will stay there forever except for occasional loans—as a national collection, the Tate never disposes of works. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "supposed lack of creativity, tastelessness and indecency" – I'd consider changing the order to make it unambiguous that of the last three nouns only one is supposedly lacking: "supposed tastelessness, indecency and lack of creativity"
    Done; I try to shuffle that bit about as some variant of it appears on most of these articles, but I agree this particular permutation is misleading. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "1870's The Knight Errant" – I needed a couple of goes at this. If you'd consider "The Knight Errant (1870)" instead, I think it would be clearer that you refer to a year rather than a decade.
Reworded to "The Knight Errant, painted by John Everett Millais in 1870", as that way it avoids the brackets. I want to keep the date in, as it indicates that Millais was still influenced by Etty decades after Etty's death. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Footnote B: the MoS bids us discreetly rationalise punctuation within quotations to match WP practice, and so I'd turn the unspaced en-dashes into spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.
    Em-dash-ified. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That's my small gleaning. Nothing to prevent my adding support, which I'm glad to do. – Tim riley talk 11:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Sagaciousphil[edit]

  • Support but an extremely minor nit pick: the first four sentences in the "Subject" section all start with the same word, Canduales; maybe worth considering shuffling the wording just a little bit? The article is well-written, based on reliable sources and the formatting looks consistent (to me anyway). SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    I've got rid of one "Candaules", to break the repetition. The first two instances are probably necessary, as they're the introduction of the painting and the king to the narrative, respectively. ‑ Iridescent 22:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, once it had caught my eye it kept jumping out at me. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Support One of the more interesting of the series, and up to the usual standard. Some nit-picks:
  • I'd split para 2, or both the lead paras. Maybe that's my 300 px default setting, which gives me the lead pic at a splendid size.
    While the MOS is generally something I honour more in the breach than the observance, people invariably complain when you deviate from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Length without good reason. At 11,000 characters of readable prose, "one or two paragraphs" is the prescribed number. The alternative, of reducing the size of the lead image down to 300px, I'm a little reluctant to do as even at this size it's quite hard to make out Gyges's face. (Yes, I know the official answer is "readers should click on the image and use MediaViewer to see it at large size", but most of our readers have no idea they can do this.) ‑ Iridescent 23:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Gyges reign was apparently, maybe, 716–678 BC, according to Wikipedia. Work that in somewhere.
    I intentionally omitted the historical Gyges and Candaules (although I did link them), as this is an illustration of Herodotus's version who is to all practical purposes a fictional character. Etty wasn't a Pre-Raphaelite; there's no indication that he was trying to create a realistic image of Ancient Greece, in which case it would be appropriate to give the historic context rather than just the myth. ‑ Iridescent 23:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How much I agree with my fellow old fogeys re the false title!

Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Title TK[edit]

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Title TK's first FAC attempt, in May, had several supports, but one editor felt the article needed rewriting. After some copy-editing and shuffling of content by both of us, this editor has now declared the article "much improved". I'm therefore submitting it again for FAC in the hopes that consensus for support will be achieved this time around. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I endorsed its promotion the last time preceded by comments in its PR. It has been since further improved with a more balanced prose. Nicely done. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for support, FrB.TG, and thanks again for your comments during the PR. Moisejp (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Leaning Support: I am the editor who felt the article needed some work before. The nominator has put a lot of work into this, and deserves praise for their patience as I've picked away at it. I think we are just about there. I've done quite a lot of copy-editing of this article now, so I'd like some other eyes on it before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks again for all of your help on the article. I'm committed to working with you and other editors to make sure we end up with an article that we're all helpful with, and look forward to fruitful results. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll take a deeper dive later, but at first blush this seems right at the FA-quality level I would expect for a rock album article. I have one source to recommend: Albini appeared on WTF With Marc Maron earlier this year and, when asked which albums he'd worked on seemed most important to him in retrospect, named Title TK (perhaps surprisingly) as one of two. The response was quite emotional and hinted at the dramatic back story of the album. The bulk of his words on Title TK (maybe all of them) can be found here. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for this source, Brandt Luke Zorn! I was unaware of it, and I'll try to find the best way to incorporate it in the coming days. I also look forward to your future comments about the article. Thanks again, Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I added the source to Note b. This is where it best seems to fit the current narrative. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • The release date should be specifically noted in the opening sentence. This is only an assumption, but can you check if the album was released in Europe a day earlier because 4AD is a British label, and a day later in the US because Allmusic is hosted by an American company? Also Elektra is based in America, so that would probably be the reason why there were two different dates.
  • I've always assumed that these were the European vs. North American release dates, but could never find a source explicitly saying so. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is an article on 4AD, so you can link the label. You should also add the labels which released the album in the lead.
  • You can lose the references in the infobox since you've elaborated on studio and genre in the article's body.
  • Removed. At one point there was an editor who was going around and removing genres from articles (not this one) where there was no reference in the infobox, and since then I've always added refs for genres. But personally I don't have a very strong opinion about it. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess we'll keep an eye if anyone randomly changes the genre.
  • "the composition of the group changed several times"... this reads more like a police record; why not write something less official like "the lineup changed several times"?
  • how about "four New York studios"? Locations seems not needed.
  • The term "computer manipulation" is not the luckiest solution here. The way it is written now, someone might conclude that computers are used to manipulate the album's listeners.
  • Addressed the three points above. For of the third one, I made it "computer manipulation of the tracks", which I hope you agree has no ambiguity. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Wrote computer editing instead. It has the same meaning, only it's more encyclopedic-friendly.
  • Can you name the one reviewer who "has commented that keyboards buzz..."
  • My thinking was to keep the reviewers' names out of the non-Songs part of the Music and lyrics section; for this section, I hoped to focus on what was said and keep who said it in the background. This is partly because between the Songs and the Reception sections, the reader is already presented with lots of reviewer names. If I also put reviewer names in the top part of Music and lyrics, it might be too much. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll elaborate this below as I see it occurs at more than one occasion.
  • Allmusic shouldn't be italicized, as it is in 'Songs'
  • The NME doesn't use star-rating system. Also, why not place Metacritic in the table?
  • I believe there's a practice to avoid writing positive/mixed/negative review in the table because non-rated reviews can be interpreted differently from reader to reader.
  • Addressed the three points above per your suggestions. I also added another negative review to the infobox to balance it better (due to the removal of the (Mixed) review). Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you considered putting the singles' chart positions in the "Charts" section under different subsection?
  • Could you please direct me to an example of this (preferable in a FA) so I can see exactly what you mean? Just now I did a random search of some albums and didn't see the singles' chart positions listed for any of them. But I think I have seen what you're talking about somewhere before. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright then, I have no problem letting them stay in the prose.
  • I see literally every review in the critical reception is quoted. Can you paraphrase some of them and make them read more cohesively?
  • OK, I'm still working on this one... It might take me a couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've had a go at increasing the paraphrasing and trying to improve the flow. Let me know what you think, and I'm happy to tweak it more. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a review from Encyclopedia of Popular Music (hope I did the reference formatting properly) and placed Metacritic at the top of the able where it should be. The rest of the reviews look good.
  • You can add an external links section and incorporate a Discogs history of releases.
  • Could you please direct me to an example of this (preferable in a FA) so I can see exactly what you mean? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not an FA standard, just a suggestion of mine to have a link to all the album's releases, such as in The Ecstatic, another FA candidate.
  • All right, I have now added an External Links sections with a Discogs link, just like it appears in The Ecstatic. Thank you for the suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What were Tanya Donelly and Britt Walford roles in the group? You should say in the Background and initial recording attempts.
  • I see this is a common occurrence in other sentences. When you firstly introduce a person in the article's body, link the name and describe his position (bassist, drummer, guitarist, etc.)
  • by the time of the band's 1993 album Last Splash... by the time it was released or recorded?
  • Done the above three. All names with Wikipedia articles have the first mention of their names wiki-linked. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What is a chance meeting with the Fear members? Coincidental, arranged, or something else?
  • Coincidental, but I don't understand how this could mean "arranged" or something else. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Because Fear members were in town and she used the chance to arrange a meeting?
  • I certainly would never understand "chance meeting" to mean that. But that's fine. I think "coincidental meeting" reads awkwardly. Do you have a suggestion how you would like it worded? Moisejp (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No, leave it the way it is now. Thanks for clarifying.
  • On a second thought, assistance or intervention are better choices than manipulation.
  • The "quiet-LOUD-quiet" dynamic link shouldn't be leading to Pixies; it's like pointing death metal to death (metal band).
  • Removed link. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we have sources that tell what the album cover represents?
  • No, unfortunately. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why are the reviews written in present when they should be in past? They are definitely a finished action, thus they need to be in past simple.
  • Changed to past simple in the Reception section because it can be implicitly surmised that the reviews came out in the time period right after the album's release, even though there are no explicit time markers. For the Music and lyrics section (including Songs) I strongly feel that the present perfect (has + past participle) is appropriate, as—within the text itself—these comments are not as strongly tied to the release of the album, and thus the time frame becomes more open-ended. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You definitely need to sort out the one reviewer issue. That includes the "Off You" caption and the first two paragraphs of "Music and lyrics". That one reviewer could be some Facebook user who wrote his opinion on the album. And since it's an opinion and not a fact, it should be precisely attributed to the author.
  • I have added attribution to instances of "one reviewer" and the like. I did leave a handful of instances of phrases such as "multiple critics have said" (with multiple references), which I hope you'll agree is not the same issue as "one reviewer". Moisejp (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, more reviewers can be referred to as "multiple critics have said" or just "critics said".
  • Related to the point above, you don't need to source every member's position as you did here. It's simply for better navigation for users like me who never heard of those musicians before.
  • OK, I have removed the explicit sources for Donnelly and Walford because between Erlewine and Albini (the two refs that directly follow) they are identified as these, even if both are not identified in both refs. But the Amps' roles were not mentioned in the pre-existing ref, so I will keep the new ref I added for that, if that's OK. Moisejp (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry for opposing, but after reading the article thoroughly, I don't think the prose has the same quality as other featured albums or candidates, such as The Ecstatic. I realize you have put much effort and time into this, but the text is wordy at places. I copyedited some sentences myself and made several suggestions above, but as for now, I don't think the article is ready for promotion.--Retrohead (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Come on, Retrohead, don't leave me like that. Could I ask why didn't oppose before making all of those suggestions above? Was it less wordy before this edit [[3]]? This has been through two peer reviews with all parties satisfied at the end of both peer reviews, and it had eight supports in its last FAC. I have been working months and months on this to satisfy everybody. Don't leave me with an oppose after I have just done major edits to it to address your concerns. Please work with me. Moisejp (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I've struck my vote. I don't want to be an obstacle and fail the nomination if eight editors support promotion. Neither I want to push changes from a position of power. It's up to the nominator if he wants to implement any suggestions. I only think that reviews from 2002 should be written in past simple and stand-alone critics' opinions should be attributed to the author. I agree if more or all reviewers have the same opinion, they shouldn't be all explicitly mentioned. But anyhow, good luck with the rest of the reviewers.--Retrohead (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! I don't want to press my luck, but I really am much more comfortable with this version from three edits ago [[4]] or I could also live with the version one edit after that. If you are withdrawing your oppose, would you mind if I reverted to one of these? I did like the various other suggestions you made and your copy-edits up to this point. I can show you examples of where the present tense is used for critical commentary in other FAs if that helps. Moisejp (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I see you disagree with changing tenses and citing critics names, so I boldly restored the prose as it previously was. Like I said, if you think my edits or suggestions are not right, feel free to revert.--Retrohead (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Retrohead. That's very gracious of you. :-) Moisejp (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Well then, I guess my input here is done. Glad you liked some of my edits and I think the article is in better shape then it was few days before. Hope to see you getting it promoted.--Retrohead (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Breeders Title TK.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct given that it's an album cover. Has a boilerplate non-free use rationale but I'd say that all points on WP:NFCC are met.
  • File:Kim Deal Smoke.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Caption points out that it refers to a problem during the production process (the topic of the section). Basic EXIF, file can be found elsewhere on the web at lower or identical resolution, no indication of copying. No indication of Flickrwashing.
  • File:Albini-Shellac-7.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Image and caption refer to an event alluded to in the section. No EXIF this time. has a higher resolution image but I can't find it. No clear cut evidence of Flickrwashing.
  • File:Breeders Off You.ogg: Non-free song sample, which seems correct to me. Has a fairly detailed non-free use rationale and the caption discusses the content of the sample specifically, with sources. The sample is in the section for the song and lyrics, which seems pertinent to me. Overall I think all parts of NFCC (including #8) are met.
  • File:Breeders Kim Deal.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Caption is sourced and also commented on in the article. Other versions of the file exist on the web in lower resolution. See my comments on Kim Deal Smoke.jpg for the rest (same Flickr uploader).

I see that all files have adequate ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Just to confirm, this all means no further action is required on my part? I just wasn't sure about the part about different resolutions existing on the web. Moisejp (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Nah, unless you want to re-check these that they don't predate the upload to Flickr - because that would indicate a copyright violation in most cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – This has been nicely improving for a while now and is, in my opinion, FA worthy against the criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, SchroCat, and also thank you again for your suggestions in the first PR. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm working through a close copyedit in my spare time here and there. I know you've seen my edits Moisejp, but I wanted to make sure I indicated this for anyone else following the candidacy. As I noted above, I'm very impressed with the quality of research and comprehensiveness. Pending this copyedit I'm confident that I will support. Moisejp, if you see any changes I've made that you disagree with just let me know here. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sabrina Sidney[edit]

Nominator(s): WormTT(talk) & ツStacey (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Sabrina Sidney, a foundling girl taken in by Thomas Day with the intention of creating the perfect wife for himself. It's a very interesting story, an article I've really enjoyed writing with Staceydolxx, and I do honestly believe it meets the FA criteria. However, I'm not terribly experienced in process (this is only my second attempt to go through it), so I'd appreciate it if you went easy on us! Of course, we're willing to address any issues that do come up and I should also mention that I am competing in the Wikicup WormTT(talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto

A fascinating and bizarre story: you almost think that you are reading about a character in a gothic novel, not a real person. The article mainly looks good; I only have a few comments:

  • Rousseau's Emile is referred to throughout as Emile, or On Education. I'd give the subtitle only on the first mention (or perhaps first mention in the lead, and then again at first mention in the body of the article).
    I've removed some instances of the subtitle, leaving it in the lead, one mention in the article and in the image of it's front page. WormTT(talk)
  • The final paragraph of the article could, I think, do with a rewrite; I had to read it a couple of times to work out what was being said. I'll have a go to see what I can do about it.
    here is my attempt; feel free to revert/improve. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    Looks like a significant improvement to me, thank you! WormTT(talk)

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I should probably formally support this nomination... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Fountains-of-Paris

  • The references in the Wikipedia article on Rousseau appear to indicate that this Sabrina Sidney article is a counter-intuitive reading of his book on Emile, and this might be amplified to clarify its usage for the readers of this article since Rousseau actually believed the exact opposite of the type of treatment received by Sabrina S. This is the passage included in the section in Mansfield Park dealing with feminism and the position which Rousseau actually takes: "Significant literary criticism has been made upon Mansfield Park concerning the role which feminism plays in Austen's characterization of the main character depicted in Fanny Price. Margaret Kirkham in her essay titled "Feminist Irony and the Priceless Heroine of Mansfield Park" has commented directly on the positions of both Rousseau and Wollstonecraft regarding the type of feminism Austen explores in the depiction of Fanny Price. For Kirkham, these two views are highly constrasting with Rousseau portraying the role of women as limited by "feminine" frailties which, counter-intuitively, Rousseau encourages women to exaggerate in order to affectionately manipulate their effect on men as he states in his book Emile: "So far from being ashamed of their weakness, they glory in it; their tender muscles make no resistance; they affect to be incapable of lifting the smallest burdens, and would blush to be thought robust and strong." (quoted in Margaret Kirkham, "Feminist Irony and the Priceless Heroine of Mansfield Park; In Jane Austen: New Perspectives (Women and Literature, n.s. 3), edited by Janet Todd, 1983, Holmes and Meier Publishers.) Wollstonecraft for her part agreed with Austen's perspective contrary to both Rousseau and his followers in this regard such as Fordyce whom Kirkham criticizes stating: "I know not any comment that can be made seriously on this curious passage (from Fordyce and Rousseau), and I could produce many similar ones; and some so very sentimental, that I have heard rational men used the word indecent when they mentioned them with disgust." Kirkham, siding with Austen, was critical of the "feminine" frailties school represented by Rousseau and Fordyce. Sabrina received tuition opposite to that suggested by Rousseau. Wikipedia's current top editor is User:Moderninst who might have another relevant viewpoint. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Hi Fountains-of-Paris, thanks for your comments and sorry for the delay in replying. Your interpretation of Rousseau matches mine, I do agree that Day misunderstood the work - but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was following his interpretation of Rousseau. Day was a complicated individual, who's opinion of women was contradictory - he appeared to want a strong-willed, intelligent woman with whom he could discuss matters of gravitas, but at the same time she should be chaste, need protection from all other men and follow his every will. He was not alone in his interpretation of Rousseau, which is not surprising as radical works will be interpreted differently by people with different backgrounds. I'd certainly value Modernist's view if he has time to read the article.
    That said, whilst I'm happy to debate Rousseau and the different interpretations, I do think the article is clear that it is Day's actions were based on his reading of Emile, not that Rousseau was advocating Day's approach. I don't believe Rousseau and Day ever met, nor that Rousseau was even aware of Day. If you think that it's not clear, I'll have another look and see if I can reinforce that fact. WormTT(talk) 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That's all fair. When I did the Kirkham edit for the Jane Austen pages, Kirkham was of the opinion that this type of reading of Rousseau should be written up as being "anti-Rousseau" in her published article. Since its a published source and Kirkham is a respected scholar, then it seems that your lead section might benefit from calling it an anti-Rousseau position following Kirkham. Just leaving it as another "Rousseau" reading seems a little ambiguous if it is left without some adjective (or some sort) to clarify Day's off-center reading of Rousseau. Its really up to you, though I thought you would like know about Kirkham's published preference on this question. Possibly @Modernist: can comment further. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (but involved). I did the GAN review on this piece and it has improved since then. Fully support. Montanabw(talk) 07:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I enjoyed the interesting story already at DYK time. Will read the lead last. General: at times I'd place a comma more, to separate ideas, but that may be just me. I wonder if the headers could be written more from her perspective than Day's? Please fix a ref warning.

  • Infobox: I am suprised that the name on top is one she possibly never had.
  • Day's experiment: I'd insert a subheader such as Background.
  • Choosing the girls: "his birthday" doesn't match a plural subject.
  • Lead: all I found on re-reading was that I needed a new para for the section after her death, which I did.

I like the engaged writing, excellent job! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your suggestions Gerda.
  • I think we used both names in the info box as we couldn't decide which to use. Which would you suggest? Sabrina Sidney or Sabrina Bicknell?
  • I've put in the sub-heading.
  • I have changed the sentence to make it clear who's birthday we were referring to.
  • Thanks for your edits too! ツStacey (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, - just Gerda is fine with me. Name: I'd match the article name on top, and have the other as other_names.
Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the reconnaissance unit of the 2nd New Zealand Division. Kges1901 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at PR. It seems very comprehensive and the prose is clean and professional. I haven't looked at sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, nice work. Not sure if I am eligible to support this one, given I've done almost 50 edits on this article, although I think they were largely minor copy editing (or similar type edits). Regardless, I will recuse myself from supporting. Nevertheless, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  • "Div Cav was relieved on 6 May by a battalion of the 363rd Infantry Regiment of the US 91st Division": does the source say which battalion?
    • No. The 363rd has a regimental history which might contain that information, but it isn't available online. Kges1901 (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • in the References, the link for Zaloga's Staghound Armored Car 1942–62 work appears to be dead: [5]
  • inconsistent presentation "Auckland, New Zealand" v. "Auckland, NZ". Same same "Matamata, New Zealand"
  • if possible, I suggest left aligning a few more of the images.
    • Left aligned a few images. Kges1901 (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: suggest scaling up the size of the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

    • Increased size of maps. Kges1901 (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to a less stressful and more constructive review of Miz Chastain's biography. Happy reading. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comments I've had a read of the "Media image" section, and have the following comments:

  • If the article has to discuss Chastain being good looking, please do this concisely. The current material on this topic is spread across the section, and somewhat repetitive. Please also consider what sources are and aren't worth quoting as there seem to be too many.
The third paragraph has a couple of lines that talk about her physical features and looks, and each of them are attributed to different sources.
  • ""timeless elegance ... almost incongruous for the current times"" - what this means is unclear.
  • "Chastain specializes in portraying emotionally grueling roles and is drawn towards parts of strong but flawed women" - why does she have this preference?
Every performer is drawn towards certain roles, and these seem to be Chastain's preference according to the cited source. The only explanation for the preference is that she likes seeing flawed women represented on screen.
  • "Chastain is unique in being a Hollywood actress who overcame ageism to become a leading lady in her 30s" - is she really the only one ever?
Seems like one of the very, very few, per the cited reference.
  • "Harper's Bazaar opines" - other quotes are attributed to the authors of articles, and it seems a bit odd that this one is attributed to the magazine
  • "Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012" - why? This seems a pretty significant honour, and is out of place in a para which mainly discusses her looks.
Due to her achievements of the year, which has been described in detail in her career section.
  • "and was named the celebrity endorser for a Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto" - was she not "hired" or similar for this role? Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Nick-D. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we have a pic of Bryce Dallas side-by-side to clarify the viewers the differences between the two? Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Haha, good one. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
[6] Also, the lead image is weird to say the least. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Why is it "weird"? She looks fresh as if issued to children on a beach. Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

At a glance: impressive. Just minor issues:


  • Juliet, even with a link, is probably not known to all our readers, - perhaps specify as Shakespeare's Juliet?
  • For the same reason, I suggest to add the authors' last names to the Cherry Garden and Salome, especially since Salome (opera) may be better known. If she performed the part of Salome, that might come out. Consider the same for plays throughout the article, without me mentioning it each time. I don't know if something similar should be done about films, or if they are known by their title only.
  • I feel a bit of duplication in awards. The Golden Globe certainly doesn't two links within the lead, perhaps not even two mentionings.
  • I would separate her producer work from work for social issues, - two sentences.
Done, except for the second point. I'm not sure if we need to mention the author's name at each instance - we never do that in any actor's biography. I guess if readers want to know more about the play, they can easily click on the wikilink. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Plays and operas seem to work differently. In a recent death biography, I helped by adding all these composers' names, it was wanted. Some titles of operas (and plays?) are less well-known, composers are more familiar. We (project opera) just have the last name without a link, such as Verdi's Falstaff, also to differentiate from the character by Shakespeare and possible use in film etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, makes sense. Added them. Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Early life ...

  • "but following years of drug abuse", - it remains first unclear if Monasterio or Juliet are meant.
  • I read first the quote about "not paying rent", then that she developed interest in acting at age 7, - the quote somehow seems to belong later.
  • The image of the Juillard School should come where studying is mentioned.

Early roles

  • "Despite written as a 16-year old", - you could say more clearly that Salome in the play is described as 16.

Need a break, will be back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time out to review this, Gerda Arendt. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a pleasure to read, but it may take me until next week, - busy singing, need to improve Der 100. Psalm first, want to make that GA while it is on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, cool. No hurry. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Heavy metal (chemical element)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This article surveys the field of heavy metal definitions; discuss their properties, origin and abundance; and sets out their many uses.

The first unsuccessful nomination (here), attracted commentary, support, opposition or contributions from User:R8R, User:Nergaal and User:Graeme Bartlett; and User:Nikkimaria provided an image review.

With subsequent considered help from User:YBG, I believe all outstanding issues have been addressed, and the article is the better for it. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been a lot of work done, but I am surprised that we now have archive2, as I thought that the work to get it up to scratch never stopped from the archive1 point! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Support by R8R[edit]

I gladly support the article and its promotion. If FAC1 failed but yielded this quality, it wasn't for nothing. (Note: I also reviewed the article during the first FAC, at which I was a little pickier as there were more problems to point at.) There article now reads very well and there's nothing I want to add.--R8R (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll review the article. Note that I reviewed the article during the FAC1 and I eventually supported it after my concerns had been addressed. The article, however, has apparently continued to change since then, so I'll perform another review.--R8R (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • "it was described" -- I think this falls under WP:WEASEL
    I moved the citation to show that the "it was described" comes from a properly attributed (and reliable) source.
  • "The term later become associated" typo
    Fixed, and 10/10 for spotting that one.

From what I've read so far, the article is great. There's nothing I have questions against or (at the moment) find missing. Very, very well done. Note for self: take a look at FAC1 comments and see if they can provoke any further critical analysis.

Thank you!
  • "Some heavy metals, especially chromium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead and thallium are" should there be a comma after "thallium"? (you're the native speaker, of course; just asking)
    OMG we have our own article about this. MOS allows either style. I oppose the mandatory style, so will leave the comma out.
    Including the serial comma would give "Some heavy metals, especially Cr, As, Cd, Hg, Pb, and Tl are". I think what R8R is suggesting is instead "Some heavy metals, especially Cr, As, Cd, Hg, Pb and Tl, are": I think this is indeed better because it makes clear where the parenthetical listing of the heavy metals being discussed ends (although I can understand its omission – I kept forgetting it when writing Fe, because you tend to forget it for very long asides). Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. I think it's looking OK now. Sandbh (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking of the serial comma, that paragraph now contains two lists, one of which includes the comma and one doesn't ("lead and thallium", "tin, and antimony"). I know the comma is a separate issue and is not strongly bound to anything (engvar and so on), but uniformity must take place anyway.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    I believe I've checked and eliminated all serial commas apart from the ones needed to eliminate ambiguity and those in reference titles
  • "Some heavy metals, especially chromium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead and thallium are potentially hazardous due to the toxicity of some of their combined or elemental forms.[n 12] Hexavalent chromium, for example, is highly toxic as is mercury vapour and many mercury compounds.[54] These six elements have a strong affinity for sulfur" text flow is a little weak in that the third sentence mentions "the six elements" mentioned in the first sentence, and it would go much better if that sentence immediately followed the first one, or perhaps the second one was parenthesized or maybe even removed. (I wasn't being picky, this simply interrupted me reading the article.)
    I'll look closer at this one.
    Have made some adjustments to the first two sentences; see what you think. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well done.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As a general note, it's common for humans to first discuss ups and then downs, so I would swap Toxicity and Biological role
    Agree. Given the subject matter and that most people associate HM with toxicity I thought it would be better to list the information in a more natural way?
    Sure, as long as you're confident in your choice (as this is a tiny question that affects little to nothing).--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "(see next section)" also, you wouldn't have to refer to material as the reader would have already read it.
    Oh, I see. Let me have another look at this.
    I've left the order as toxicity, and then biological activity, so as to match the lead, which mentions toxicity before essentiality (as do all applicable definitions that I can recall). Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to take a break here and will continue as soon as possible.--R8R (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • For fairness's sake, I'll say that apart from being toxic, permanganate has been sold in crystals in drugstores as a good antiseptic (not sure if you should react in any way)
    I can vaguely remember this was the case. Emsley suggests it's no longer available so I didn't say anything about this application.
    I see your point. Though I'll say it is very well-known among common people, at least those around me. (It was, however, outlawed in common drugstores five or less years ago after someone learned how to use it to make home-made drugs.)--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I was initially sceptical about the table, but good disclaimers around it make up for anything I was unsatisfied with.
    Yes, it caused me quite a bit of stress which is why it wasn't there the first time round.
    Normally, I would try to do that in a piece of readable text. Not saying your solution is worse or anything; just different.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "platinum the most ubiquitous given it has been said to comprise 20% of all consumer goods" this bears some distrust. How come platinum, one of the rarest metals, is ubiquitous?
    Emsley says, "Indeed, this metal is involved in oil refining, car exhausts, fibre optic cable, computer hard disks, fertilizers, paints, jewellery, anti-cancer drugs, laboratory equipment, and pacemakers.
    I am still worried. Just in case, I checked a dictionary on the word "comprise" and I think the phrase should be reworded. Surely this can be worded in a way that doesn't raise my eyebrow.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you, I've edited this bit to make it clearer. Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you, much better.--R8R (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, wow. This read like a perfect article and on the top of my head I can't think of any significant issue with that. I'll re-read the comments that came from the FAC1 and immediately after that and think once again. Right now, the article seems absolutely great to me. Maybe I'd reorder the sections, but that's about it.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your gracious feedback. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "in question.[38] as at" one superfluous period
    Fixed. I owe you an eagle eyes award (and a non-English native, at that---I'm impressed). Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    I was carefully reading what I said I would review, no big deal. :) --R8R (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod, leaning oppose[edit]

  • I really don't like the title, which strongly implies, if not states, that there is a chemical element called "Heavy metal". Somewhere you need at least one "s"; there are various possibilities. Heavy metals (group of elements) might be one way. But it seems they are not all elements on some definitions?
Yes, I've had some on-again off-again reservations about the title. How about Heavy metal (science and engineering)?
  • The lead is way too short. The first sentence isn't really a definition, or a scoping-out of the area within which the different definitions lie. At least the first para of the next section should probably be added, plus more of the article summarized. You can read all the existing lead & know only 3 examples. Roughly how many are there, on maximal and minimal definitions? As someone with very little knowledge of chemistry, the parts of the article I've read raise more questions than they answer. Try to imagine your reader is a not especially bright 16 year-old, at least at the top of the page.
OK I'll revisit the lead. I appreciate your input as a non-chemist. Sandbh (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've augmented and edited the lead. The first sentence is unchanged as it captures the nub of what a heavy metal is, and anything more specific wouldn't be representative (or would be too detailed). As you suggested, I added some words from the next section so as to give context to the "definition". There are now 16 examples of heavy metals, plus indicative lower and upper boundaries. There's also a paragraph about their properties. The only section the lead doesn't touch on is the Etymology and usage section which I suspect can be left to the main body of the article. How does it look now? Sandbh (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I accept your comment re the lead section. When I intend to read the whole article, I often "cut to straight to the business" and skip the lead (which, of course, I shouldn't have done here). I just read the lead now, after you had added your comments and they had been responded to, and the lead does a fine job of introducing the concept to the reader. Maybe one thing we're missing is a pre-text template {{not to be confused with}}:
Not to be confused with Heavy metal (music).
I don't think this is necessary as the title of the article makes its scope reasonably clear. Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I won't insist; yet I'll note another wikilink is normally good as interlinks are good in general and make articles less alienated.--R8R (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that is Heavy metal music in fact. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Have added the template in light of R8R's reasoning. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The lead is certainly much better now. There is still room for some more, and the sections: 5 Formation, abundance and occurrence, and 6 Properties compared with light metals, don't seem to be represented. I wondered if there is too much emphasis on the question of toxicity. Is " is often assumed to be toxic..." in the 1st sentence actually referenced anywhere? I'd be inclined to cut that. Surely, few think iron is toxic, but maybe many don't know it is a heavy metal. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbod. Section 5 is represented in the lead by, "Heavy metals are relatively scarce in the Earth's crust." In compressing this section down to nine words I was guided by MOS:LEAD where it says the lead serves as a summary of the articles most important contents. I personally find this section to be quite interesting, and it takes a while to explain the subject matter, but it's not that important, almost in the same way that section 2 (Etymology and usage) isn't that important, and hence is not mentioned in the lead. I can, however, say more about section 5 in the lead if you feel its importance warrants this.
Section 6 Properties compared with light metals, is summarised in paragraph 3 of the lead.
The reference to heavy metals being assumed to be toxic is taken from the widely cited paper by Duffus (2002) who says, "There is also a tendency to assume that all so-called “heavy metals” have highly toxic or ecotoxic properties. This immediately prejudices any discussion of the use of such metals, often without any real foundation." So in the lead I say that heavy metals are often assumed to be toxic. I haven't gone as far as Duffus by saying that such assumptions are often unfounded, because (a) I think that an "assumption" calls itself into question well enough; and (b) paragraph two of the lead gives a fair summary of the toxicity question (and only mentions iron as an essential heavy metal, after first discussing the more notable toxic metals, rather than saying anything about its toxicity). The only mention of the toxicity of iron, if it's taken in excess, occurs later in the article in the toxicity section. Does this see reasonable? Sandbh (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
But what else would I want here. Do you find that something is missing now? (As for the title, I won't judge. It seems to me that this is too minor a question to seriously discuss. If you think this is causing problems (not think this could cause problems for someone; for you), then let's just do it. Otherwise, you may be overthinking the problem. (we also have titles for other groups of elements in singular forms: alkali metal, group 4 element, noble gas, etc.)--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If it was just Heavy metal, there would not be a problem (of that sort), but I'm not sure this can be claimed to be WP:PRIMARY. Heavy metal (chemistry) would be better than the present title (oddly, that redirects to Toxic heavy metal, which should surely be fixed!), or I think "Heavy metal (science and engineering)". Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
HM (Chemistry) now redirects to Heavy metal (chemical elements). Sandbh (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow! I really don't agree with the previous reviewer. But then he's a chemist.

Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a chemist. Though I've been writing articles in Wiki for five years or so and am pretty familiar with this now.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, apologies! You had me fooled anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll start this point again, as the above has got lengthy. I'm still not keen on the first sentence "A heavy metal is generally defined as a metal with a relatively high density, atomic weight or atomic number, and is often assumed to be toxic." - that is to say including the part after the comma in it. It reads oddly, and means that your opening definition essentially breaks down to two statements: a) "I can't exactly say what a HM is", and b) "you might think they are toxic (but you're wrong)". This is unsettling for the reader, especially if they had no assumptions about toxicity, which will often be the case. It would be better to move "often assumed to be toxic" to the start of the next para - I still can't see that this wrong assumption is a sufficiently fundamental point to include in the initial definition. People expect the opening sentence to provide a clear and concise definition, and while it may be inevitable here that the first part is unable to do this, the additional confusion the 2nd part introduces seems unnecessary.
I've relocated the toxicity assumption from the end of the 1st sentence to the start of the 2nd as you suggested. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Still (mostly) on the lead, the article does not include, or stress, key points to enable non-chemists to understand the subject. Take the following statement:
"All native metals are (generally agreed to be) heavy metals."

- is this true? More importantly, why don't I know if it is true or not after reading the article?. If it is true, I'd urge you to put something like it in the lead. If it is not, at least explain/qualify/discuss it lower down. It's a pity the term native metal is not generally known to non-chemists, and other more familiar terms such as precious metal and base metal should be brought in, or references to metals suitable to metalworking. As far as I can tell from reading the article, a working layman's definition of what a heavy metal is might be "all the substances you think of as metal, plus another bunch you've never or hardly ever heard of, but which might be used in tiny quantities in making your pc, mobile phone etc." I ought to be clearer on this after reading the article, but I'm not.

I can't find the statement, "All native metals are (generally agreed to be) heavy metals." anywhere in the article. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No, THAT'S MY POINT!! It should be there, if true. If not true, say why not. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to native metals---more trouble than it's worth. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The high densities of native metals such as copper, iron and gold may have been noticed in prehistory." This is a rather ridiculous statement, given the massive metalworking industries that dominated later periods of prehistory, in Eurasia anyway. I've no idea what your reference says, but we can be entirely sure they were "noticed".

Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This sentence now reads, "The advent of metalworking, at the end of the stone age, may owe its origin (in part) to the observation of the high densities of native metals such as copper, iron and gold." I hope more clearly conveys the intended meaning. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No, that's worse. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
How about this: "Awareness of the high densities of naturally occurring heavy metals such as gold, copper and iron may have contributed to the advent of metalworking, and the end of the Stone Age.
No, that's also terrible. People did not go to the vast trouble of metalworking to make dense objects. It's very clear from the archaeological record what they were doing. They wanted strong tools with sharp blades, from base metals, or beautiful and long-lasting jewellery from precious metals, and in making these materials that could be melted and cast in moulds, or softened and hammered, or worked in other ways, were very helpful. Equally, they could hardly fail to be aware of the density, but that was incidental. Metal was far too valuable to use for weights (looms, fishing nets), where stones or sometimes ceramics were used (this is pretty much true long after prehistory, until the Early Modern period). Note how very rare prehistoric use of lead is, until they needed it for plumbing. Maces are made with stone until historic periods.
Oh dear, I didn't intend to give the impression that early metalworking revolved around attempts to make heavy objects. I was trying to say that, in prehistory, the heaviness of native metals may have served to distinguish them from other objects in the environment. The rest of the section then continues the theme: thousands of years of all known metals being relatively dense; the shock discovery of light metals in 1809; and Gmelin's subsequent distinction between light and heavy metals. Anyway I've renamed the section to Terminology as per your suggestion, and edited it to try and make my intent clearer. Sandbh (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The more I look at this article, the less happy I am. I don't know much about most aspects of the subject, but the bits I can judge easily are not done well. I understand the subject lacks a clear definition, which causes problems. It seems to me that the important things one can usefully say to explain the subject to non-chemists should begin with saying that all the "historical" metalworking metals, both base and precious, are HMs. At the moment I can't even work out from the article whether this is actually true, and I really should be able to. With the exception of aluminium (already noted), all the metals commonly encountered as the main component materials of everyday objects are also all HMs - or are they? I don't know from the article, and I should.
I've added a hopefully helpful hatnote to the article explaining which elements, for the purposes of making the article easier to follow, are presumed to be HM. I thought about saying something about this in the article proper but the content seems more appropriate/efficient as a hatnote. There is now a paragraph in the lead picking up on your suggestion re base and precious metals. I didn't use the term base metal given its multiple definitions. Re all domestic metals being HMs. The end of the lead says HM are present in many [i.e. not all] aspects of modern life, and gives several examples. In this light I don't understand the need to say that all the metals commonly encountered in everyday objects are not HM. Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod, the hatnote is gone, now incorporated into the lead and main body of the article, further to the comments from Vanamonde and edwininlondon, below. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Etymology and usage" - actually nothing is said about the etymology of "heavy metal" (probably nothing needs to be said). The only info as to first use is pretty weaselish - does nobody know in what language and when it was first used? Incidentally, I can't find the term at all in the original OED (under "heavy") - perhaps I missed it. I'd change the title to "Terminology" maybe, and try to establish the origin properly.
Gmelin's density-based use of the term heavy metal in 1817 (and its corollary light metal) is the earliest I've been able to find. To this day it's the most popular of the more specific definitions. The earliest quote in the OED dates to only 1864: "Jrnl. Chem. Soc. XVII. 126 In support of the view that thallium is one of the heavy metals, the following reasons may be given." [see the OED entry for "heavy", a.1 (n.)] Worse still, Duffus's widely cited International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) paper was only able to trace scientific use of the term back to 1936. Since low density metals were only discovered from 1809 onwards I doubt the heavy metal/light metals distinction, as a science-based concept, would have an origin predating these times.
In the context of the above I think it's reasonable to say, "An early use of the term "heavy metal" dates from 1817, when the German chemist Leopold Gmelin divided the elements into nonmetals, light metals and heavy metals." Certainly, it's better than relying on Duffus' 1936 assertion or trying to do something with the OED.
I like your suggestion to change the section title to Terminology. I just need to square away your earlier comments about pre-historical awareness of metals as dense substances. Sandbh (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of this section seems very important, and needs expansion, even its own section. Unfortunately it currently begins very badly with the prehistory bit, which I discuss above.
This paragraph may be better now, following the changes discussed above. Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The first periodic table image needs a caption explaining it better - perhaps quite a long one, or specific explanation in the text.
A caption is possibly not now required, given the new hatnote at the top of the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Formation, abundance and occurrence" - out of my comfort zone, but seems ok. Somewhere something should be said about how the less common ones are extracted/processed. Numbers of the other heavy metals are presumably rare and very expensive; it would be good to say something about this.
  • "Uses" This is the section that really worries me. It mostly reads like a random selection of snippets off the internet. The density section has a long para all about sports! The "Strength-based" one is one far-too-long para, the start of which is very wide-ranging (and much better in itself) but it is wholly unreferenced until the toys, which won't do at FAC, however basic the statements. More below.
I'm not sure what is surprising about the sports paragraph—the examples given seem clear enough. It's a bit longer due to the mini-story at the end about hammer throw hammers. The strength paragraph has now been split into smaller paragraphs. I've added citations to the uses examples. I would've liked to have fewer citations however the literature on these kinds of very specific uses of heavy metals is scattered. Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • what is lead doing in the "Strength-based" section? Is it especially strong in alloys? Since it isn't in pure form, this should perhaps be explained.
I've changed the section title to "Strength- or durability-based" to make it clearer (much clearer, I hope) why metals such as lead are included here. This is also elaborated in the paragraph.
  • "Home electrical systems, for the most part, are wired with copper wire for its good conducting properties." - well, nobody is arguing with that, but it hardly does justice to the role of HMs as electrical conductors, and for long the only practical ones. Gold and silver as specialized conductors should be mentioned.
Silver and gold are now mentioned. Sandbh (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is never any attempt at explaining in chemical terms why HMs are the most suitable for their uses - for example in the "Nuclear" section. Surely plenty could be said here? There's just lists of uses, and it is where these are familiar (density and strength in particular) that they seem randomly collected. Which makes me worry about the unfamiliar bits.
  • I think, since the definitions are so variable, some sort of complete list of HMs should be given. That, plus a definition, is probably what people are looking for in such an article, not stuff about weights in sports, and I think they may have to be given it. There are various ways to arrange it. One might start with the ones everybody agrees about, and work outwards in groups. I suppose this information can be extracted, with some difficulty, via the periodic table diagrams, but few non-chemists can work with these.
The definition issue has hopefully now been clarified; I'll see if I can address the "complete" list as part of edwininlondon's comments, below, along the same lines. Sandbh (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the hatnote I've discussed above has addressed your last dot point. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I've read your responses, but I'm away at the moment & will assess changes & respond mid-week. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbod. There are three o/s dot points I'll see if I can tackle before then. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Support by Nergaal[edit]

  • There could be some nitpicking done,but the article looks much, much better than the last time. Also, I suggest having the title styled as "HM (chemistry)". Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Nergaal. Before I saw your post I changed the title to "Heavy metal (chemical elements)" as I thought that would capture the subject matter and have the least amount of anchoring to any field. Sandbh (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Are there other "XXX (chemical element)" articles? Plus, when a biologist or physicist refers to HM he implies chemistry. Anyways, I think no parenthesis at all is the best. The disambig page can jsut have (disambiguation) in the title. Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
      There are no other "XXX (chemical element)" articles that I could find. I agree that a biologist would be implying chemistry; I'm not sure that a physicist would, nor would a metallurgist, astronomer, mechanical or electronic engineer—the latter four would at least be implying chemical elements (maybe also alloys, at least for the metallurgist). For that reason I'd be reluctant to call it "HM (chemistry)" whereas the current title captures the subject of the article quite nicely. What did you mean by your last sentence(?)—I didn't understand it. Sandbh (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      Much as I am somewhat loath to admit it, I daresay the musical genre has a pretty good claim to be the main topic as well, so I think both need disambiguations. Although I would point out that the parenthesised text is meant as disambiguation, and Nergaal's suggestion "heavy metal (chemistry)" works perfectly well and is as concise as it could possibly be. Even though they are important in other fields, are they not defined by being chemical elements? Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • My suggestion in fact. I still think it preferable. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll change it to HM (chemistry). I may need some admim help to tidy up things. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I'll say a word as well. I don't think "(chemistry)" is a right specification. The article currently mentions three main criteria, and "heavy metals" can be defined with any of the three: density, atomic mass/number, and chemical behavior. Only the latter can unambiguously be shown as related to chemistry, but neither atomic numbers nor density are. The fact metals are chemical elements is best shown by the current "(chemical elements)" specification.--R8R (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
How do you feel about "Heavy metal (science and engineering)"? Sandbh (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Heavy metal isn't really a term relevant to engineering, I'd have thought. But it's unclear to me why density and atomic mass/number are not "related to chemistry". Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Sandbh well explained why density isn't as closely related to chemistry as to engineering. My first idea was that the science closest to the density aspect was materials science, but that's pretty close to engineering as well. As for atomic numbers, these definitions are usually used in the context of nuclear reactions (radioactive decay or nucleosynthesis), which is covered by nuclear physics rather than chemistry.--R8R (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to at least cater for some of the density based applications of heavy metals such as to provide ballast in, for example, racing cars, planes and ships. This has more to do with engineering than chemistry. Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"Heavy metal (science and technology)" might work too, as something broader. Sandbh (talk),
Both "Heavy metal (science and engineering)" and "Heavy metal (science and technology)" are great. Certainly better than the current "Singular (plural)" title. Perhaps I would choose the one with "technology," though, of course, "Heavy metal (science and engineering)" is also fine.--R8R (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I've changed the damned title to Heavy metal (science and technology). Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde[edit]

This is an interesting read, well done. I have not previously participated at an FAC, so I think I'm going to limit myself to leaving comments, and not actually support or oppose (unless I find exceptional reason to). Here's some comments to begin with. Vanamonde (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments.
My apologies for my comments coming all over the article: this is partly because I'm new at FAC, and partly because the article itself has undergone so many changes. Anyhow, here's a few more suggestions. Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the hatnote above the article necessary? Surely it could be incorporated into the lead, and make the article aesthetically more pleasing that way?
Done. Yes, I agree and have merged the hatnote into the lead, and adjusted the definitions section. I was feeling the same way myself. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay that's a lot better, but I don't think you need the "sometimes" in the "sometimes quoted as..." "quoted" does not imply "universally." in my mind, at least.
"Is quoted" sounds too authoritative. Given Duffus describes heavy metal as an effectively meaningless term I think the "sometimes" qualifier strikes the right tone. Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "In metallurgy, for example, a heavy metal may be defined on the basis of density,[5] whereas in physics the distinguishing criterion might be atomic number,[6] while a chemist would likely be more more concerned with chemical behaviour.[7]" This seems a rather over-qualified statement, does it not? Why not "In Metallurgy, a heavy metal is defined..." etc.
I'd like to do that but there is no consistency within these disciplines. For example, in metallurgy heavy metals are sometimes referred to in terms of their high atomic numbers, and in chemistry in terms of their densities. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there at least evidence to go with "In metallurgy, heavy metals are frequently defined on the basis of..."
No, there isn't  :( Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "in 2002 it was described..." by whom, and in what context?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "chemical behaviour or periodic table position are known or have been used" perhaps better as the simpler "have historically been used." or some such.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "definitional looseness"; better as "uncertainty over definitions?
Partly done. Changed to "uncertainty around definitions" Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Atomic weight definitions have been expressed as, for example, greater than sodium (22.98); or greater than 40;[n 4] or 200 or more." this is an awkward construction, IMO. How about something like "Definitions based on atomic weight can range from elements heavier than Sodium (atomic weight 22.98); or greater than 40" etc.
Done. I hope the new version is better. Sandbh (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The next sentence is somewhat contradictory with this one.
Yes, there is not necessarily any consistency in the literature when it comes to density, atomic weight and atomic number definitions. Sandbh (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In that case, I might incorporate what is now footnote three into the text. It is fairly relevant, after all.
  • the test described as "metallic impurities that are colored by sulfide ion" is not very clear. Surely it does not mean that an element is a heavy metal if impurities caused by said metal also contain sulfide? But that is what it reads as.
Done. Edited to make meaning clearer. Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " the latter figure is 3.6 times that of lead (at 11.35 g/cm3)." Hardly controversial, but still should have a citation.
  • "and the term metalloid later acquired a completely unrelated meaning." There's no source at the end of this sentence. Does it need to be duplicated from someplace?
Done. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The heaviness (and malleability)" might be better as "The weight and malleability". I know that "weight" has a technical meaning slightly different from its colloquial usage, but I think it still works in this context: "heaviness" sounds really odd.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wondering if the very last paragraph of the "definitions" can be appended to the third-to-last paragraph. The material just seems a little scattered at present, and I'm thinking of ways to tighten it. Not sure this would work, but it's a thought.
Done. It was a good thought. See how the section looks now. I did have to bust out the origins and use of term subsection into its own section, but I think this is justified. The two sections now seem tighter and more interesting to me. I'll have to add a few citations about element 118, which I'll do shortly. Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Still a rather clunky title, but better. Let me see if I can think of a better one.
  • The "terminology" section seems not very distinct, content-wise, from the previous section. Could the two be merged, with perhaps a sub-section being created for "history of terminology" or something like that?
This section was originally called Etymology and usage but I changed in light of Johnbod's comment. How would you feel if I changed back to that title and made it a subsection of the prior section, as per your suggestion? Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would indeed prefer that.
Done. But I changed the title to "History of the term and usage" in light of Johnbod's previous comments about Etymology. Sandbh (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Biological role
  • Personally, I would prefer the "biological role" section to come prior to the "toxicity" section. In my mind, at least, it makes more sense to understand what the role of a metal is under normal circumstances, before learning what happens when things go wrong (broadly speaking).
Ordinarily I'd agree. In this case I put toxicology before biology in light of the strong association of toxicity with "heavy metals". Does that seem reasonable? Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the subsections of the "toxicity" section could do with a little bit of expansion. I understand that the section is merely a summary of a full article, but it seems a little brief. The "heavy metals of concern," for instance, could at least mention the different ways in which those metals are toxic.
  • Similarly, the rest of the section says that something is toxic several times, without mentioning why or how. We don't need too much detail here; but just as you've mentioned DNA damage for V2O5, it seems appropriate to mention the outcome for Germanium, Indium, and so forth.
  • There is no source for the toxicity of copper sulfate (or is it the emsley source? In which case, I would duplicate it, as they are superficially disconnected statements).
Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "insoluble uranium compounds, radiation aside, are poisonous" This is an odd construction. perhaps something like "insoluble Uranium compounds are poisonous to [insert target here], in addition to the dangerous radiation they emit."
Partly done: I left out mention of a target. I think it is safe to say that something is poisonous, and only clarifying this if "targets" other than people were intended. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Heavy metals can cause environmental problems" this is rather vague. Could you be more specific?
Done. Edited to make the meaning clearer. Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wondering if we can find a better sub-section title than "heavy metals of concern." If they're toxic, surely they are all of concern?
Done. I've added a short contextual paragraph to the start of this section, and beefed up the subsection title so that it's now called "Heavy metals of particular concern." Does that help? Sandbh (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just wondering if Minamata disease deserves a mention in the last subsection: it's a highly notable example, after all. Entirely up to you, though, I'm sure there's a number of such examples.
Done. A highly notable example, as you said. Sandbh (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Formation, etc
  • "Heavy metals up to the vicinity of iron" might not be very clear to a non-chemist; perhaps add "in the periodic table" so that folks know what you mean.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Stars lose much of their mass when it is ejected late in their stellar lifetimes, and sometimes post-ejection as a result of a neutron star merger,[79][n 18] thereby increasing the abundance of elements heavier than helium in the interstellar medium." This sentence is rather confusing (and, I believe, ungrammatical) as it stands. Could you please clarify it?
Done? Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Much better.
  • "They constitute" should not be the opening line of a paragraph, though. Likewise for the nest para.
  • Excellent work on that figure: but I'm wondering why Technetium, Polonium, and some of the Lanthanides and Actinides are missing from it.
Thank you. The missing "ghost" elements have abundances much less than one part per trillion. In discussing the composition of the figure with another editor, and looking at some similar figures in the literature, we concluded that they were not worth showing. This was explained at the end of the figure, in note 14. Since this note was a bit out of the way I've merged it into note 13, right next to the table title. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That should do it. One last followup: I wonder if there's an easy way to format the numbers that label periods and groups, so that they look different from the elements they are next to?
  • "Rather, they are largely synthesised by neutron capture" I might add the clarifying phrase "from elements with a lower atomic number" after this, for clarity.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why does the slow process stop at Bismuth?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "as the most noble of metals" I know that "noble" is linked, but I still think you should clarify the usage there with "noble, or corrosion resistant" or something like that.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "Stars lose..." is not tied in to the rest very well. I'm not sure how to fix it, because I'm not certain of the intent. Are you trying to describe how heavy metals get from stars to planets? If so, it should be made clearer.
Done. It should be tied in better now. Sandbh (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the last paragraph is also rather disconnected at present; trying to think of a good way to shuffle the content to make it flow better...
The three paragraphs before the last paragraph talk about the occurrence of HM in the crust. I though it would be OK to finish the section with a few words on the situation below the crust. The penultimate paragraph, with its discussion of siderophiles, presages this. Sandbh (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "From a whole of Earth perspective, some other..." ungrammatical, and not entirely clear. Why should affinity change depending on whether you look at the whole earth? The same comment could be applied to the note as well.
Fixed, I hope. Reworded to try and make things clearer. Does it read better now? Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Still a bit confused, tbh: the linked articles suggest siderophiles are those that sink to the core: how, then, can you only assess that for the crust?
  • As it's currently phrased, the last sentence of the section could be parsed to mean that the heat generated drives the magnetic field. This is obviously not the intent, so wondering if you could rephrase.
Done. Qualification and note added. Sandbh (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The "more reactive" entry for light metals has no source
Done. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lithophile" links to an article which I don't think is the article you want...
Done. Thank you.
  • You need to clarify what the sulfides and hydroxides are soluble or insoluble in, I think: or is it assumed to be water? I'm not enough of a chemist to know whether this is a serious issue.
Not done. For a chemist and most science professionals this would not be an issue since water is the standard solute for conducting "wet" chemistry, as opposed to "dry" chemistry e.g. when gunpowder explodes. I presume a more general reader would interpret "soluble" to mean soluble in water, unless otherwise indicated. For example, the definition of soluble given by the Oxford Dictionary is, "(Of a substance) able to be dissolved, especially in water". Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay.
  • "platinum the most ubiquitous given it has been said to be found in, or used to produce, 20% of all consumer goods." This sounds complicated, and is not quite grammatical. How about making it a separate sentence, and then replacing "it has been said to be" with "that it has been"?
  • "Density-based" is an odd section title: though slightly redundant, might "density-based uses" be better?
  • The first sentence of "density based" hangs by itself without a source. While I would agree that it is an acceptable summarizing sentence, I would prefer it being merged with the paragraph below.
  • "sink rate" is a rather jargon-ish term

Comments by edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting topic and it generally reads well. A few comments just to get started. More later. One thing that strikes me as missing, given all the different criteria, is a table that shows which ones are indisputably heavy, which ones are heavy in metallurgy in its least strict definition (density > 3.5 gr per cm3), etc. That would visually show 2 things: which elements we're talking about and the variation in definition.

Thank you very much for your comments. The table at the start of the Definitions section shows metals and metalloids according to their density. The middle five colour categories cover those having a density of 3.5 gr per cm3 or more. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess what I meant was that the article doesn't tell me which elements are indisputably heavy, no matter which criterion used. Actually spelling out the names of the elements. Followed by a list of elements that are sometimes called heavy. Right now the reader has to do a lot of work to figure this out.
There are no metals that are indisputably regarded as heavy metals. With careful wording, this is perhaps the best that could be done:
(1) list mercury, thallium, lead, bismuth, radium, actinium, thorium, protactinium and uranium as being likely to meet most definitions;
(2) list the 70 other metals counted as heavy metals in this article, including polonium and astatine;
(3) list the dozen other metals also regarded as HM by some definitions.
Would that help? Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Including the statement that no element is considered HM unanimously.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Other comments:

  • I like the new title Heavy metal (chemistry) much ore than the old ones
Sorry, the title is now HM (Science and technology) following the discussion in the Nergaal comments subsection, above. How does this look? Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Much better
  • density in the lead should be linked. Yes, there are many links already, and normally wouldn't need a link, but when placed next to atomic weight and number, it should I think. Likewise, metallurgy, periodic table, and all of the elements mentioned. If this results in a sea of blue, then de-link things like mining, lead-based paint and golf clubs. A user who lands here is more in need to get to a page of an element quickly.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The caption of the tungsten image is too long. Stick to the essentials
Done. I deleted the etymology bit. Hopefully only the essentials are left. Sandbh (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • All metals known up to 1807 --> This is not a well known set, so I'd rephrase it. Something along the lines of "The metals that first were discovered were all heavy: iron, ... In 1807 the first light metal was discovered, ..., followed by ... Later discovered heavy metals include ... By the way, the year 1807 only appears in the lead.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In 2002 it was described[8] --> any particular reason why the [8] isn't at the end of the sentence?
Fixed. Old habits etc. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Quantitative criteria used to define heavy metals have included density, atomic weight and atomic number. --> feels repeating previous paragraph
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • are mainly the heavier transition and post-transition metals _-> do we end up with a circular definition here? Biochemstry's definition of heavy is class B. Class B are mainly the heavier transition and post transition metals.
I don't think so? Or are you saying that "heavier transition and post transition metals" tells someone no more than "Class B" does?
Yes, you've just changed one thing I've never heard of with another.
This sentence now reads, "…all the metals in periodic table columns 3 to 16 that are in row 4 or greater, in other words, the transition metals and post-transition metals." Does the reference to periodic table columns and rows make it clearer, given the periodic table at the start of the section? Oh, and I'm now worried about terms like lanthanides and actinides and, in the preceding paragraph, s- and f-block metals. Sandbh (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • the term "heavy metal" --> inconsistency with "the name heavy metal"  : italics or quotes?
Done. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Heavy metals essential for life (see next section) --> consider swapping the Toxic and Biological role sections, so we don't need this awkward forward reference.
Done. In response to multiple requests. Sandbh (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • selenium (antioxidant functioning and hormone production). --> Looks like a source is missing. I looked at [53] which is the first reference, but that doesn't have a page number.
Done. But see next dot point. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • bacteria for metabolic processes.[38][52][55] --> adding 3 references seems unnecessary. One should suffice
Provisionally done. I rearranged the paragraph up to this point, and trimmed a couple of references, to facilate paragraph bundling. This is provisional response because Emsley currently has no page numbers, as discussed in my response at the end of this thread. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The purple permanganate ion MnO–4 is toxic. Ingesting .. body --> source missing
Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Heavy metals can degrade air, ... paints; treated woods --> source(s) missing
Done. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There seems to be quite a few statements in the Formation, abundance and occurrence section without source. I don't have the sources that are mentioned, but missing for instance seem to be: via stellar nucleosynthesis, would consume rather than release energy., being the s-process and the r-process, faster than nuclei can decay, thereby increasing the abundance of ,
Done. These statements are largely derived from Cox's book on the elements, their origin, abundance and distribution, as cited. He discuses nucleosynthesis in stars at some length, pp. 73 to 89, especially. I don't normally cite each sentence in a paragraph, if they are all sourced from the same reference. I place the source at the end of the last applicable sentence. I did however add another cite from Cox re "would consume, rather than release energy", as I missed a few of the applicable pages in the other Cox citation. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • non-metals or nonmetals?
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • as lithophiles or chalcophiles. Lithophile (rock-loving) --> I'd explain it right away: as lithophiles (rock-loving) or chalcophiles (ore-loving). Lithophile ..
Done. Good. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • reference [86] has 3 sources, Sanders 2003; Preuss 2011; Wohlers & Wood 2015, but none have page numbers to indicate the exact place. One with precise reference would be better
Partly done. The first two references are university media releases on the web, hence readily accessible but having no page numbers, discussing different aspects of the subject matter. The last one is a journal article which I have now deleted. Sandbh (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • tensile strength --> wikilink
Not done. It's linked in the immediately following table, along with hardness, and it would look a bit odd to remove the links from the table. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I always link first use in lead, in body, and in table, since tables are likely to be consumed separately by scanning users. But we all have our own style.
I like your approach and will adopt it. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • While it is relatively easy to distinguish .. colourless complexes). --> needs sources
Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In underwater diving, .. in handicap horse racing .. of competitors. --> needs sources
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the quote "The higher the projectile density, the more effectively it can penetrate heavy armor plate ... Os, Ir, Pt and Re ... are expensive ... U" --> making the elemnts links makes it easier for the reader who doesn't know these elements by abbreviation
Done. Good idea. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • and armour piercing projectiles --> needs a source
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • coinage and jewellery. --> source
Done. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • of either zinc carbonate; tin oxide; or --> the semicolons look odd here, why not commas?
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • They have been used in batteries.. button cell batteries. --> needs a source
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • [155] (using lead, bismuth, thorium or uranium in the latter case). --> should the reference not come at the end?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note 9 Google recorded 945 citations for the paper in question[37] as at 19 April 2016. --> A link to the Google Scholar results page would count as a source
Not done. I tried getting rid of the note and turning it into a non-date specific linked source to Google Scholar but the result looked awkward: one citation after "frequently cited"; another one after "proposal". As well, nothing is gained by a link to the Google Scolar search results page beyond what is already conveyed by the current note. Well, at least I hope I interpreted your comment right. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm just looking at it from a point of being an easy to verify claim.
Right, I'll keep the note and add a link to the Google Scholar page. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Whether or not element 118, the heaviest in the noble gas group, is a metal remains to be seen. --> source?
Oh, the sentence to which this note is attached says, "Elements from atomic number 104 (rutherfordium) onwards are sometimes called superheavy metals" and cites Loveland (2014). Since nobody knows for sure where 118 will be on the metal--nonmetal spectrum, and I haven't been able to find any decent (i.e. relativistic) predictions addressing this question, I think the Loveland citation needs to have a qualifying note pointing out that E118 may or may not be a metal (and hence may or may not be a superheavy metal). As an editorial caveat there is no source. Sandbh (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather see sources attached to a statement about the uncertainty being a metal or not. To be an FA it has to adhere to the highest standards, not much room for editorial caveats.
If I include a university web link showing 118 as a non-metal, and a Royal Society of Chemistry weblink showing it as a metal, thereby illustrating confusion as to the status of 118, would that work? While the Loveland-sourced statement is fine at face value, I feel a duty of care to raise an eyebrow wrt 118. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note 15 source?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note 18 source?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note 21 source?
Not done. This one is an cautionary editorial note concerning how the uses section was organized. As such it has no source. Sandbh (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll do a spot check of references later, but i can see already quite a few that have no page or page range. For instance, Emsley 2011 is used many times, without page references but is a 700 page. Check all others for page numbers.
My standard practice is to give precise page numbers, unless the whole reference e.g. a journal article is relevant [Addendum: or if the reference has no page numbers e.g. it's on the web; or if it's very short]. Emsley is organised alphabetically by element and each entry is organised the same way so is easy to look up. I have used him as a major source and I didn't want to add a whole lot more unnecessary citation clutter. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think being easy to verify is more important than citation clutter, besides there are ways to reduce citation clutter. Same with the whole journal article making the point: it is likely to be in the abstract then, so why not give the abstract's page number? Take Duffus 2002. Referenced 5 times. But [b] is really specifically covered on page 798, not the whole article. These are just examples. For me to meet FA criteria the referencing overall needs to be better.
This is fine be me; aside from Emsley, I'd expect there wouldn't be too many sources without page numbers so I'll look again at these. Noting my approach to Emsley, would you be looking for page numbers for him, too? Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Definitely. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Celebration time
Only three two of your items still to address (list of HM's; wikilinks in lead-body-tables; absent page nos). Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. I've made some changes to the references, but leave it for you to decide and act upon this:
  • inconsistent ISBN format: some are ISBN 10, others 13. Choose 1. You can convert with this tool: (I didn't know this either but was asked to do so when I did my FAC nomination.)

I will check some sources next. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

William Borah[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... William Borah, a senator whose tenure might be dismissed as more eccentric than effective, were it not for the gripping hand he had on U.S. foreign policy for most of the crucial interwar period. He may still have influence today, a commenter on a comments page elsewhere mentioned his foreign policy as what he would like to see. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- Browsing new nomination statements as I do, and never having heard of Borah, I was intrigued by the bit about foreign policy someone would like to see. Spotting a couple of things in the lead I wanted to change, I decided to recuse from coord duties and copyedit/review, at least in part. For now I've just gone through the beginning and end, and obviously won't declare a position until/unless I get through the rest. In the meantime:

  • In the lead, I altered "one of the greats" as it seems a bit strong for WP but there may be a better way still of getting his importance across while keeping the language neutral.
  • Moving forward to the Assessment/Legacy section, these can be quite a challenge to get right but it seemed balanced and thoughtfully organised to me. One thing though: "cited as evidence of naiveté in those who believe in the power of pure diplomacy" -- can I confirm we mean the naiveté "of" those, implying that Borah is of that mindset? If so I think the word change might make it clearer.
I've found that a difficult passage. The implication is that Borah, in seeking to talk with Hitler, was of that mindset, but I'm reluctant to imply that Borah really felt that way. We have this comment, second-hand, contained in what is a laudatory tribute to Borah. That doesn't mean he actually felt the way Rumsfeld portrays him as feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That's it first up, I look forward to others' comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment The "final years" section raised some questions for me. I guess there is a sense that it has been blown out of proposrtion in certain quarters, so maybe, understandably, you did not want to dwell on it too much.

  • "Borah was unwilling to back large-scale immigration by Jews from Germany, feeling that was impractical with millions of Americans unemployed." "unwilling to back" - Could you not just say that he "opposed" Jewish immigration, or is it more nuanced than that? How much significance did his opposition have (I think this is important, for example in relation to the spectacular failure of the Evian Conference, with its resulting boost to Nazi propaganda)?
None at Evian, Borah never went to Europe. As the Republicans were a minority in the Senate, his formal influence was not high. He reflected a feeling in the country that Roosevelt had to reckon with. He opposed large scale immigration at a time of unemployment. That it was Jewish immigration was incidental. I'll make that change.
  • "By 1938, Borah was speaking out against Hitler's failure to end persecutions." (same paragraph). "failure to end" - This could be taken to imply that he had expected Hitler to strive to end persecutions(?!) (If so, this seems bizarre enough that it should be spelled out.) However... could you just say "continuing persecutions" (or something stronger than that) instead?
That change as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "McKenna noted, "It was fortuitous that the march of events prevented Borah from joining those pacifists and liberals ... who trudged up the hill to Berchtesgaden to lay before the Fuehrer their plans for world peace"." (end of same paragraph). Revealing the depths of my ignorance, I am surprised to discover that "pacifists and liberals" went to meet with Hitler. Could you provide an article link, or a footnote perhaps, to elaborate on that? [Adding... immediately after posting this, I just realised, he probably is just referring to Chamberlain.]

I haven't finished it yet, but I think this is one of the best articles I've read so, cheers! zzz (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I cut out the actual names to focus on Borah. One was George Lansbury. Chamberlain never went to Berchtesgaden. Thank you for your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I am indeed trying to put the whole German thing in context. Remember that Borah died in 1940, and for him the name "Hitler" conveyed something rather different than it does to us. If someone said today, if only Borah could have talked to Hitler, the whole war could have been avoided, we'd think he was mad. And that is the light in which Borah's comment is being presented. So I'm trying to be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • I was really happy to see this article on the FAC list. Borah's a fascinating figure and I've enjoyed reading your article about him. I have only a few nitpicks:
  • "...he studied alongside students who would become prominent, like William Allen White and Fred Funston." I think "like" here has too many possible meanings. "including" might be better.
  • Link tuberculosis?
  • "blew up with dynamite" could maybe just be "dynamited"?
  • Maybe link United States presidential election, 1916?
  • " invalid Wilson refused any compromise." "Invalid" here, although I know what you mean, is confusing (could be read as "very ill" or "not valid".) Maybe "ailing" or "bedridden" (if the latter is accurate).
  • "Borah did agree with Hoover on one issue..." This sentence is confusing, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
  • That's all. Great article, good luck with the nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Coemgenus, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was wandering the stacks of GMU's library, and wondered why there were so many books on Borah. I've made those changes, sometimes using my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
That all looks great, Wehwalt, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Borah.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and the source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I've swapped that for another image and cleaned up the form on that one. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I confess I'd not heard of Borah. I missed the peer review, so my comments are a bit more detailed than I normally provide at FAC, but they are for the most part fairly trivial:

  • It seems almost too rivial to mention, but he was 71, not 70, in 1936
Childhood and early career
  • "not a good student" and "eager learner" in consecutive lines is a trifle puzzling.
  • Add "to train for the ministry" after: "... academy at Enfield"?
  • Date (year) of expulsion/running away?
  • "In his teenage years, he became interested in the law..." – I'd say "In his later teens..." He was 16 when he went to the academy, and presumably older when he ran away.
  • "finally accepting his son's ambition" suggests a degree of reluctance that you haven't previously indicated
  • "The bar examination was rudimentary and Borah passed it in September 1887, going into partnership with his brother-in-law." Two distinct events, therefore needing something between "1887" and "going", e.g. "before".
  • You might mention somewhere that Lyons was a pretty small place. References to "the mayor" and "city attorney" give the impression of a metropolis, but I see from our article that its population in 1880 was around 500. Little wonder Borah wanted to get away.
Idaho lawyer
  • I'm not sure that, in the circumstances you describe, Borah can be said to have "gained" the dismissal of the case agaist his client. Rather, he benefitted from a quirky judge.
Senate contender
  • "Borah also involved himself in politics". In the previous section you said that he "prospered in law and politics", so you don't need this here.
  • "an unapologetic return to the Republican Party" – did being a "silver Republican" mean he had been outside the party?
Yes, I think so. They walked out of the 1896 convention, ran candidates against the Republican one, and did not heed the party platform. I'm closely paraphrasing the source at this point in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "In 1902, Idaho Republicans elected a governor, the state's only House member, and a large majority in the legislature." Can you explain what this means? Does it mean that Republican candidates were elected to the state's governership, to the state's House seat, and formed a large majorityu in the state legislature? If so, this needs clearer wording.
  • but then the other candidates backed Heyburn" → "but the other two candidates withdrew and backed Heyburn"
  • "acclimation" → "acclamation" (unless it's some peculiar mid-west method of signifying approval)
Haywood trial, lumber accusations
  • "Until 1933, Congress's regular session began in December, allowing Borah time to participate in two major trials, one of which boosted him to national prominence for his role in the prosecution, and the other, with Borah as the defendant, placed him at risk of going to prison." Too much info for one sentence, and some awkwardness in the phrasing. Suggested split: "Until 1933, Congress's regular session began in December, allowing Borah time before taking his seat to participate in two major trials. One of these boosted him to national prominence for his role in the prosecution; the other, in which he was the defendant, placed him at risk of going to prison."
  • I'm slightly concerned about a 200-word verbatim extract from the trial transcript, which seems unnecessarily long. Suggest paraphrasing the mushy stuff at the beginning into a few words and beginning thje quote at: "I saw murder...".

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've dealt with the above, I believe.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I do apologise for the delay in competing this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll resume today and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

...and here's the rest:

Progressive insurgent
  • "the fiery Ohio senator..." possibly POV/non-neutral?
No, Roosevelt was after someone who could outflame Foraker.
  • "in 1972, after the death of Roosevelt, Borah, and most of the soldiers..." That should be "deaths", and given the intervals (53 years for Teddy, 32 for Borah, perhaps make it "long after"
  • "progressive": in view of the different understandings of this word when used in its political sense, a pipe-link here would be helpful. In the lead, too.
  • pipelink "primary" → Primary election, and perhaps "convention" to Political convention
  • "sent 80 Republican legislators out of 86 to Boise" – not entirely clear to less-aware readers, so perhaps: "sent 80 Republicans to the state legislature out of 86..."
Wilson years
  • First sentence: the "both" is awkwardly placed. As this is a new section you might begin: "After the 1913 elections, the Republicans lost the presidency with Wilson's inauguration, and went into the minority in the Senate".
  • Link Panama Canal, and maybe say "completion" rather than construction, as this had been going on for decades
I've adjusted the text to make things clearer.
  • "completely out of it" – "completely" is unnecessary
I think it emphasizes the strength of Borah's feeling.
  • "infringements against Americans by British forces." "Infringements", eh? What did our boys get up to?
I thought you would raise that. Regrettably the source does not say.
  • "Reunion was not achieved": My understanding is that the 1916 Progressive convention nominated Roosevelt again, but he declined to run and pledged support to Hughes. if that is so, then reunion was largely achieved.
Yes, but in between those broad facts is much. See 1916 Progressive National Convention.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I've adjusted the text to explain more.
World War and Versailles treaty
  • "Gooding narrowly won Brady's seat, with Idaho's two senators giving the Republicans a 49–47 majority". Not really: any two Republicans could claim the same, and the Idaho seats were defended rather than won, so I would severely prune this sentence.
  • "the principle of a league": You've not mentioned the League of Nations previously, only an allusion to "a postwar organization to assure peace" so I think you neeed to expand a bit here.
Harding and Coolidge years
  • "eventually strongly" – adjacent adverbs always a problem
  • Perhaps a line to explain B's objection to Taft as chief justice?
  • "remained" → "were still in office", otherwise the sentence is unclear
  • (Sidebar: I'll add that Coolidge comment to my slim collection of Mr Taciturn's witticisms)
  • "Salmon Levinson, who had formulated the plan..." – what plan?
Hoover and FDR
  • Pipe-link "lame duck" → Lame-duck session
  • I think I'd omit "looms" from the caption
1936 presidential campaign and final years
  • "utterly disgusted" – just "disgusted" will do (the neutral voice)
I think it helps with the near occasion of Hitler later in the section, to balance that.
  • "Borah issued a statement far more critical of Britain and France than of Germany." Briefly, on what grounds?
  • The first sentence seems a mite unpunctuated
  • Was the Idaho ceremony truly a "state" funeral? I thought that "state" in that expression meant the whole nation, the United States
  • Will all readers know that T.R. means Roosevelt?
Marriage and family
  • "According to one family friend, "everybody called her 'Aurora Borah Alice.' " Clarify that "her" refers to Longworth, and also mention that she was TR's daughter.
  • I suggest you remove the "clear" template, which creates a large white space much more distracting than allowing the image to leak into the next section.
Sites and memorials
  • "At the University of Idaho in Moscow..." That, without explanation, will raise many eyebrows. (Not that Moscow, surely?)
Appraisal and legacy
  • V. minor quibble: the first three paragraphs all begin "Borah's..."
  • "Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer has referred to the quote in at least three of his columns..." Can you specify which "quote"? Does this refer to Borah's "comment", which is not presented as a quote?

Superb job, needs a little final attention and I look forward to supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, per comments/responses above. Fascinating career, but I doubt I'd have voted for him. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. He was certainly a unique character.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Paul Palaiologos Tagaris[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 14th-century Byzantine minor noble who by various deceits managed to advance from a simple monk to the Roman Catholic Patriarchate of Constantinople, switching back and forth between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the Roman and Avignon popes, and generally making a splendid career out of it. It passed GA without much trouble in 2014, when it was created, and I think it has what it takes for FA. Of course, any suggestions for further improvement are always welcome. Constantine 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Urbanus_VI.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author information, and it needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I've replaced it with a better sourced one. Cheers, Constantine 10:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Wonder why no one has commented yet on this short article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "complemented by an account of his visit to Paris, written by a monk of the Abbey of Saint-Denis." You could mention a date for both the visit and the document here.
  • "After a while he returned to Constantinople," Until this point, you haven't established that whether he was from Constantinople.
  • "in the words of Alice-Mary Talbot" That is pretty abrupt, you need to present this person and give a date for her comment.
  • "In Palestine, Paul managed to be ordained" No date?
  • "brought charges against Paul" Nothing on their nature?
  • "In Antioch, Paul once again managed to befriend" What is "once again" a reference to?
  • "forestalled by the Bishop of Tyre and Sidon" Name?
  • "immediate return to Constantinople to stand trial." Trial for what?
  • " Paul once more decided to flee and try his luck in Rome" Once more? But Rome isn't mentioned before this point?
  • "George Tagaris, his putative brother or father," Shouldn't this be mentioned already in early life?
  • "now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City" Would be pretty nice to have an image of this?
  • "His tenure was troubled: the local Orthodox clergy appealed to the Venetian authorities for protection against his exactions, the Latin Archbishop of Athens, Antonio Ballester, complained of the Patriarch's interference in his diocese, and his lease of some of the Church lands in 1383 to a Venetian from Crete, Giacomo Grimani, proved a source of protracted legal trouble since Grimani, in the words of Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, "revealed himself as much a scoundrel as the Patriarch"." This sentence seems too long.
  • "n the words of Raymond-Joseph Loenertz" Again, who is this, and when?
  • "—rather dubious—connection with the Palaiologos" You don't call this dubious in the article body, and you don't explain why it is dubious.
  • "via Ukraine" Only mentioned in intro.

2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl[edit]

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for FA review because I have been working on making it as comprehensive and useful as possible to readers. I believe it can reach FA status because it is already well-sourced and easily passed the good article review a few months ago. The article is about a fairly controversial event at a sports event, so reviewers may want to see if there is any sort of bias existing. It may also need some expansion, but I am not sure where to start. Please leave your comments or post whether or not you feel like it qualifies as a featured article. TempleM (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Leaning oppose. Some notes below; generally I think the prose is a bit muddy, and in a couple of cases looking at the sources I think the article represents the source a little imprecisely -- two or three times I had to go to the source to get a clearer understanding of what actually happened.

  • "with the Windsor Express being named the champions in the prior season by topping the Island Storm in seven games": you can be named champions after winning, or become champions by winning, but it's not usually phrased as "named champions by winning". I think changing it from "by topping" to "after they defeated" is the simplest fix.
    • Fixed.
  • "In the 2015 NBL Canada Playoffs, the Rainmen were coming off wins": I think this is a little imprecise, because the Rainmen were coming off wins when they reached the final; they weren't coming off wins when they were in the playoffs. Also, I don't like "Windsor, on the other hand, had beaten the Mississauga Power 3–1 and the Brampton A's 4–3": it's not really "on the other hand". How about something like "The Rainmen reached the 2015 finals via wins over the Moncton Miracles and Island Storm, 3–1 and 4–1 respectively; Windsor's route was through victories over Mississauga Power, by 3–1, and the Brampton A's, by 4–3"?
    • Fixed.
  • Why so much detail about the six prior games of the finals? There's a separate article about them; surely all we need is the fact that they were tied 3-3, and details of anything that led to bad feeling between the teams.
    • I mainly just included the scores of the games, plus information about fouls and injuries. I went in-depth into the foul and injury information because it shows the physicality of the games. There were far more fouls than you would usually see in a basketball game. Poor officiating was also a big part of the six games in the series.
  • "But midway, they crossed paths with Vito Frijia, London Lightning owner and a member of the NBL Canada executive committee, who stopped the bus in the middle of the highway": I think "midway" is more than can really be gleaned from the source; just say "part way there" (and drop the "But"). I also think "stopped the bus in the middle of the highway" isn't right: Frijia persuaded Levingston to have the bus pulled over -- he couldn't "stop" it by himself; and it was the side of the highway.
    • Fixed.
  • "but the incident would be ignored by owner Andre Levingston": what's the source for this? The quote in the source given doesn't clearly say that, and it's a player's opinion in any case so should be cited if you keep it in.
    • I deleted those words.
  • The incident with Fisher's bags being packed doesn't make it clear that per the source Fisher claimed the team instigated this, not the landlord.
  • "the players had supposedly been "forced" by team owner Andre Levingston to partake in the game": you mean "participate", not "partake"; and this needs rephrasing, since you can't say they were forced to do something they didn't do.
    • I added information about how team management was held accountable for this incident.
  • "Vito Frijia would be named league spokesman during the investigation": I think "was" would be better than "would be", but why do we need this information in the article at all?

Frijia was a key figure and had a lot of authority during the investigation, so this would be worth mentioning. I made the fix you suggested.

  • "The coach had a salary of only about $1,500 per month during the eight months he spent with the Rainmen. Despite this, he was unable to contact team owner Andre Levingston..." -- "despite this" seems to be a non sequitur; why would having a low salary mean he would expect to be able to contact Levingston?
    • I removed the statement that was causing an issue.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie: I have made changes where you suggested them, so hopefully you can take another look to see if this is ready for featured article consideration. To any FA coordinators, please don't close this thread yet. TempleM (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I'm working on some other reviews, and would like to see what other reviewers think, so I'm going to hold off on a re-read for a bit. If I get time this weekend I'll come back and strike the points you've addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bud Dunn[edit]

Nominator(s): White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Bud Dunn, who is notable for training two World Grand Champions in the Tennessee Walking Horse breed, being inducted into his breed's Hall of Fame, and being named Trainer of the Year twice. Interestingly, he accomplished most of these things as an older man, and is the only horse trainer I know of who won anything in their 80s. The article is fairly short, but I've tried to cover his career in a neutral way, with a lot of RS. (He would have been covered extensively in the official TWH magazine, the Voice, and was probably on the cover both times he won the World Grand Championship, but issues from back then are not online and I've had no luck finding copies at used book sales.) This is my first try at FAC, but I have 5 GAs counting this one. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments by starship.paint[edit]

  • Alright, I'll start by the weekend, if not earlier! starship.paint ~ KO 01:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Infobox: How is his discipline Performance?
    • "Performance" is a way of saying "show horse" as opposed to horses that are ridden on trails. I can find a reference and make a note. "Discipline" is a way of breaking down the dozens of varied things people do with horses; i.e. show jumping, dressage, and eventing are the three Olympic disciplines. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Please cite a reference then and make a note then :) starship.paint ~ KO 06:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I added a reference to the note that WAF inserted. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I could not find the word "plastic" in the source, although your note mentions "plastic". Also, it would be good to mention "Performance" in the body and not just the infobox. starship.paint ~ KO 01:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Reference "House of the Burgesses" seems to indicate that Elaine is his third wife? "married thirdly"
    • I really can't figure that thing out. None of the other sources say anything about him being married to anybody else. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • He grew up on his family's farm and was involved with horses from a young age. - needs a reference.
    • I can't remember which ref that was in. If I can't find it within the next day or two I'll just remove the sentence. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Bud and Steve Dunn remain the only father and son to win World Grand Championships within the Tennessee Walking Horse industry - this is supported by a statement made by Steve in 1999. I think attribution of information to Steve would be added, or finding a more recent secondary source.
  • Reference "Dunn's number to be retired" says in 1991 he won the Professional Sportsman of the Year award. It also says his trainer number is 1865.
    • I don't know if that is separate from Trainer of the Year, which another source says he eon the same year. 1865 was his rider number, meaning that he wore a piece of paper with the number on it. It's done so the judges can tell the horses and people apart in a large show. They retire the numbers worn by famous riders the same way they retire jersey numbers worn by famous football players. I added a bit about it. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I can't tell whether that was separate from Trainer of the Year or not; the other source definitely puts it as Trainer of the Year. Sometimes reporters get scrambled, like in "Dunn Walking Horse specialist" it says "ferrier" where it should be "farrier". White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" says Those experts privately will tell you he has been blackballed in the past because he didn't live in the Shelbyville area and is not considered part of the clique ... he didn't want to live in middle Tennessee and get involved in the politics of the business. Include this?
  • Reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" additionally says came here from Georgia (40 years ago). I thought Georgia should be mentioned in the text. Sorry if my American geography knowledge is not up to standard.
    • I added a sentence or two. Georgia is directly next to Alabama to the east. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" also says He has broken bones in virtually every area of his body while training horses.
  • Is there some day you could incomporate the page numbers (1B, 4B) and second title (Dunn would like another shot at training, riding the best) for reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal"?
    • Adding the second title pushes it past length and gives an error for some weird reason, but I did add the page numbers using "pages=". White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • RPM won the Reserve World Grand Championship at the 1998 Celebration - does this just mean RPM finished in second place as the source said? Writing "second place" is clearer.
    • Think I put Reserve because that's how they write it in the show records. Getting a top 10 is considered good in a major show like the Celebration. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • However, the source also wrote RPM was runnerup. I really think Reserve will confuse general readers. They might think he won 3 World Grand Championships. Either "second place" or "runner up" is much easier to understand. starship.paint ~ KO 06:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I clarified it to hopefully fix that issue and make it clear that it's second place. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
            • FWIW, "reserve champion" is a term of art in not only horse showing, but other animal shows; it is a bigger deal than "second place," and so changing the wording to something like "runner-up" would sound incorrect. But WAF's edit explains it. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here are my edits to improve the article. I was able to fix some issues myself on referencing sources.
  • More needs to be written on horses as this is a short article. Search for who are the 20 world champions mentioned in ""Walking Horse pioneer dies"?
    • I found info on 4 or 5 of them, and added a sentence or two about each, also added them in the infobox per the way they do it on the GA and FA articles on racehorse trainers. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Dunn Named Top Trainer" mentions Yankee Delight. "Dunn Walking Horse specialist" mentions Yankee Delight, Delight Puff & Stuff, Aces Executive, Stock Exchange. "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" mentions RPM is a 1997 3-Year-Old World Champion and the 1998 4-Year-Old World Champion. "Dunn honored with Trainer of the Year award" mentions Dark Spirit Rebel was third in 1991.
    • I added a bit about the horses shown by him (as opposed to those trained by him and ridden by amateurs) and about the prior wins of the World Grand Champions. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @White Arabian Filly: - aren't horses trained by him also notable enough for mention? Especially if they are world champions. starship.paint ~ KO 06:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I added the name of every Dunn-trained champion I could find. It wasn't all of them, but probably half of them are mentioned. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Google Books mentions (but I cannot access): Biography of the Tennessee walking horse, Law for Business, Horse protection act of 1969.
      • In the horse racing articles, where trainers could have hundreds of horses, we select mostly the ones who are notable enough to have articles in their own right. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Featured article criteria 1. c. (well-researched) calls for "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Is this not in contradiction to what White Arabian Filly has said about relevant sources that she knows to exist, but that she has not consulted? Now, I know there has been discussion over how to apply this criteria to topics that thousands of volumes of relevant literature has been written about (one editor's example is the topic Rail transport in Great Britain; a bibliography lists 20,000 volumes of recommended reading). But for the present topic I would assume it's reasonable to apply this criteria in earnest: if there are relevant sources that have not been consulted, the article is not well-researched. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is getting the sources to consult them. I know that traditionally, the World Grand Champion each year is on the cover of the Voice, and they also write an article about them. The problem is finding copies; since it's a magazine, most people will have thrown them out years ago. I know I go to a lot of used book sales, and haven't found any from that time period. If I ever get to the Tennessee Walking Horse National Museum, I can probably find and reference the relevant issues. That is not likely to happen soon (it's about 100-125 miles away from me), though I do have an old copy of Western Horseman that has some coverage about Dunn and RPM. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe ebay but $$$ . You should add whatever the Western Horseman says... starship.paint ~ KO 06:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Short of a trip to a museum and spending days digging through one-of-a-kind sources, I think WAF has done a pretty thorough review. The newspapers are actually some of the best extant sources we have for these old guys; few industry magazines are digitized and eBay is, $$$ indeed, plus locating good indexes to find out WHICH issue something was in can be equally challenging. I found the text on Harmon v. Dunn, here -- that case mostly involved Steve, not Bud, his name only appears as the dba for the stable name, but Steve was the lead plaintiff and he prevailed, so it's all irrelevant here unless we need an RS that "Bud Dunn and Son Stable" existed as a dba business entity and that it was in Florence, Alabama. I think other sources cover that. (The legal precedent is of interest, but not here]). The snippet view of Green's book looks like a list of results and so is RS for those results in snippet view. I'm pretty good at digging up Congressional hearings, if the HPA testimony in 1969 is findable online, I'll find it. If it's relevant, I'll be back or add something to the article; otherwise, no news is no luck. Montanabw(talk) 01:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Follow up: I did an exhaustive online search, and while it does appear that this source contains some testimony on page 106 by Bud Dunn related to what became the Horse Protection Act of 1970, full text is not available online; I reviewed the Library of Congress and, the Hathi Trust and several other sources. (Cornell, USDA, etc.) Print copies are reasonably available at various libraries and maybe via interlibrary loan, but I don't know if WAF can access any of this. But absent additional sources saying what impact his testimony had on the outcome of the legislation (and I cannot locate any), or if he made some other public statement about it, it's probably SYNTH in this article anyway, though it would be interesting to know if he was for or against it. The late 60s and early 70s are a bearcat for finding stuff; I did find at Hathi Trust scan on the Congressional Record of the hearing on the same bill in 1970 but not the one in 1969. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @White Arabian Filly: apologies for the ping, I didn't see they were already addressed. Could you get a source for the Paschals being brothers though? starship.paint ~ KO 12:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC
  • @White Arabian Filly: nice job! There are two more things though. Would it be possible to find out his earliest world championship win? Plus, list the winning years for his winning horses (Stock Exchange etc). Because right now the earliest actual win date by a horse is 1992, while he was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1987. He must have done significant things before 1987... starship.paint ~ KO 12:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've added a couple of new refs that say he competed in 125-150 shows a year, and that he won a leadup to the World Grand Championship in 1970 (doesn't say whether it was an actual Championship, but it seems to be a pretty big class, so it is significant enoufh to include). I've added dates for all the winners I could find. One of them says he was living in Russellville, Alabama in 1970, so I included that as well. It doesn't say his stable was there though and Russellville isn't far from Florence, so he could've lived there and commuted to his stable. Everything says the stable was in Florence, Alabama. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay. I've expanded the article even more with stuff found online. World Champ 1970 and Hall of Fame 2003. I'm now confident in the scope of the article. Good work and support. starship.paint ~ KO 13:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bud_Dunn_portrait.jpg: the given source link includes a photo credit. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "the team of Dunn and the stallion was said to be the most popular in Celebration history": This strikes me as an opinion needing attribution.
    • That's what it said in the newspaper report, so I don't know where the reporter got it from--maybe other trainers. It could have been the opinion of the show organizers, though. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cortinarius violaceus[edit]

Nominator(s) J Milburn (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

J Milburn and I have buffed this one intermittently over the years. I reckon it's as complete as possibly can be and we've even had some input from a world expert on the fungus :)) Anyway, take a look, we'll answer queries pretty pronto and have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley I am completely ignorant about fungi, but here goes.

  • "Forming mycorrhizal relationships with various tree species, C. violaceus is found predominantly in conifer forests in North America and deciduous forests in Europe.". You say below that it also forms mycorrhizal relationships with other plant species such as bracken. I think it would be helpful to say here that it is not wholly dependent on trees.
  • I assume from what you say that C. violaceus is wholly dependent on its symbiotic relationship with plant roots and cannot survive without it. If so, I think you should spell this out.
    • I would strongly assume that this is the case, but some fungal species can grow under various conditions. I don't have a source either way. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Other populations once identified as C. violaceus or close to that species have now been described variously as C. palatinus, C. neotropicus, C. altissimus, C. kioloensis and C. hallowellensis." I find the word "variously" confusing here. It could mean that the same species are variously described by different names, but I assume you mean they are different species. I would leave out the word "variously".
  • "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as 1 January 1821, to coincide with the date of the works of the "father of mycology", the Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries, which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." I find this sentence incomprehensible, no doubt due to my ignorance of the subject. Why is a starting date needed at all, and how could Fries sanction the names of species which were not discovered until after his death?
    • Sanctioned name and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants may provide some clarity. The starting date (it is my understanding) more-or-less corresponds to the beginning of more formalised study of fungi (and the same kind of thing exists with animals). There's no need for Fries to sanction names after his death; names only need to be sanctioned if the formal description came before the starting date. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Now I think I understand what you mean. The general rule is that names are sanctioned by the first describer, and for any species described by Linnaeus that is him, but mycologists initially ignored him and only counted descriptions from 1821 on. I was confused by you saying that the rule applies to all species, not just the ones known at the time. It would be clear if you changed "which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." to "which meant the name of any species described by Fries required his sanction (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
No no, Sanctioning was done by Fries (and to a lesser extent Persoon). So what happened was that Fries selected and used a name by an earlier author and this was signified by the ":Fr". But finally in the 1980s this whole situation was overhauled and the official starting date set at Linnaeus/1758 like other organisms. I was/am tempted to leave this whole sanctioning thing out but lots of older textbooks and articles still have the notation in it, so thought it was worth noting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: for all organisms, the official name is the earliest legitimate name, so which one came first is really important to establish. Now naturalists have been naming things for centuries and many organisms have a host of early scientific names that predate Linnaean taxonomy. But Linnaeus was set for plants and animals as he established binomial names. Fungi were set later (Fries/1821) but then recalibrated to Linnaeus anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I see I misunderstood "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as 1 January 1821, to coincide with the date of the works of the "father of mycology", the Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries, which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." I thought you were making a general statement that names of fungi required Fries's sanction (and was confused how this could apply to fungi discovered later). If you changed to "the name Cortinarius violaceus required" I think it would be clearer. Does "L" stand for Latin? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The "L." stands for "Linnaeus", who first described the fungus. All naturalists have a specific name that is used as an authority after the binomial name of the organism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The fact that these species diverged relatively recently indicates that some form of dispersal must have taken place across large bodies of water." Has there been any discussion of the means of dispersal? Presumably the spores could easily have been transported by migrating birds.
    • I do not have access to this source, so I defer to Cas. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The source article is actually online here. It states that long-distace dispersal was originally thought to be unlikely for ectomycorrhizal fungi due to geographic and climate barriers and lack of host plant at the destination. However, the timing of the spread of C. violaceus and relatives (as well as other species), suggests that this dispersal is actually not uncommon - the dispersals are often "founder events" where a small sample makes it to a remote location and spreads. Article doesn't say much more than that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • "developed a symbiotic relationship with pines, as well as multiple flowering plants;" You do not mention flowering plants as symbionts below.
    • Flowering plant has a technical meaning, according to which (say) oaks are flowering plants, even if you won't find them in a florist's. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "These species are differentiated due to the latter population's rounder spores." And by their preference for pines or deciduous trees?
  • "Fruit bodies of C. v. hercynicus are less robust than those of the nominate subspecies." This implies that C. v. hercynicus is a valid sub-species, which you suggest elsewhere is controversial.
    • Yes; this is tricky as there are at least three possible explanations for what's going on with the "subspecies". I've reworded. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "along with mosses of the genera Hylocomium and Pleurozium, and, in moister areas, big shaggy-moss (Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus), as well as the buttercup-family shrub Hepatica nobilis" Is it known whether C. violaceus has a symbiotic relationship with these species?
    • I do not have access to that source at the moment, so I defer to Cas. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
These species are not mentioned as symbionts of C. violaceus. As the article discusses hosts extensively, I suspect it isn't known Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You do not cover nutrition, if that is the right word for a fungus. The article on Ectomycorrhiza states that the fungus assists the plant in getting access to water and nutrients and receives carbohydrates in return. Does this apply to C. violaceus?
    • Yes- I'd imagine that this species's relationship is fairly typical of mycorrhizal fungi, and I've not seen any sources suggesting otherwise. I'd be inclined to think that we don't need to spell out the whole nutritive process for the same reason that we don't need the full details of the digestive system in each mammal species's article (unless it's unusual). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a brief comment would be helpful, such as "C. violaceus has a similar nutritive system to other mycorrhizal fungi with x and y", and a link to an article with a fuller explanation - if there is a source for this. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, all sources talking about the mushroom assume the reader is familiar with the general ecology of mycorrhizal fungi, and hence do not describe the mechanics. I could get a source unrelated to this particular species that talks of ectomycorrhizal relationships and maybe put it in a footnote or something... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you cite this source] for a statement that C. violaceus is a mycorrhizal fungus, which obtains carbon from plant roots and supplies them with mineral nutrients from the soil. I would put this in the main text rather than a footnote, although this is of course up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If different populations have preferences for different trees and there is no genetic difference between them, then that implies a cultural preference, which I assume would be extraordinary for fungi. Do biologists who think C. violaceus is a single species deny that some prefer pines and some deciduous trees, or do they have an explanation for the different preferences?
    • It could be that they don't have different preferences at all; that any particular C. violaceus organism could with either kind of tree: "Emma Harrower and colleagues, on limited molecular testing, found no genetic or ecological difference between the two taxa." I note, too, that people who disagree about classification here might disagree about the best explanation of the data or they may have differing ideas about "species" (see, for instance, lumpers and splitters) or both. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Harrower concedes the testing was limited and did not conclusively sink hercynicus as a taxon just yet. Genetic testing is more complicated than it looks.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So I assume the dispute is between those who think that hercynicus is a separate taxon with a different ecology, and those who think that there is one taxon and ecology. No one thinks that there is one genetically identical species with different cultural symbiont preferences in different populations? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • To a certain extent; there is inevitable variation within species (for an extreme example, compare a pug to an wolfhound), so it could be that there are some organisms in the the species which prefer pine and some which prefer hardwoods. These separate groups within the species could be delineated as subspecies, varieties, forms or some other sub-specific grouping, but, alternatively, they could just be thrown together as the same species (depending on both the data available and the views of the scientists in question), so there are a range of possibilities; the "there is only one" and "there are two completely separate species" are at either end of that range. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: My reading is that the two forms have been accepted for decades if not centuries on the basis of ecological and some morphological differences. Limited genetic testing has thrown that wide open but the latter researcher (Harrower) is cautious in dismissing the two forms though states that at the moment the testing is looking to show no distinctness. I find that alot of scientists are cautious and conservative in either splitting or lumping taxa until the data is pretty firm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An interesting article and I learned a lot, but I found some points puzzling, no doubt due to my ignorance. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for taking a look; I've made a start on your comments and will be back shortly. Cas may also offer comments in the mean time/subsequently. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Right then, here now...Some stuff looks obvious to me but I miss that it might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Just two points outstanding. I have replied above on nutrients and you have not replied to my comment on the starting date of fungal taxonomy. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
ok added now - how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support from FunkMonk[edit]

  • This article was in good shape after my GA review, so I cannot find anything to add other than: "Cortinarius violaceus extract demonstrate" Should it be demonstrates? Extract is singular? FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Verb tweaked..and thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
Copyedits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Hence, the name no longer requires the ratification of Fries's authority": Someone who died before 1900 can't give his authority today, so this needs some sort of rewording. Also, I'm probably going to trim the bit about the colon unless it has special significance.
the colon is important as it is the postscript for the name. Fries might be dead but his authority was required until 1987. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow. If someone said "You'll need the ratification of Casliber's authority for that at FAR through at least 2100", what would such a statement possibly mean? On the colon: I'm dubious, because it isn't the postscript any longer; defunct orthography generally isn't a burning interest at FAC. But you'd know better than me. - Dank (push to talk) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Fries (and to a lesser extent Persoon) are/were the only two mycologists to offically Sanction names and get the colon treatment. I'd describe Shakespeare's plays in the present tense and he's been dead alot longer.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The implication seems to be that they needed a dead man's approval for something. I'm sure it means something else, but I don't know what, and I bet the readers won't know either. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the primary appeal ... are their appearance.": First: "the appeal is". Second: this seems to me to be phrased in the form of an opinion. If you want to keep this wording, it would probably be best to attribute it in the lead, just as it is in the text.
I get where you're coming from - there is clear consensus they are pretty boring to eat and pretty colourful to look at so am in two minds about attributing it to arora only. Need to think about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Lots of things would work for me, including "Though they are edible, the appearance of these mushrooms is more distinctive than their taste". - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Works for me/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm never happy with the first sentence of mushroom articles. It's not your fault (or mine I hope) ... the problem is that, for some readers, this is an article about a mushroom, and for others it's an article about a fungus that produces a mushroom. I'd prefer something that makes sense to either POV, something like: "Cortinarius violaceus is a fungus with a mushroom commonly known as the violet webcap or violet cort. Native across the Northern Hemisphere, ...".
I agree this is frustrating on how people viwe and describe fungi. Will try to play with it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that works, as long as we don't take too long to mention "fungus". - Dank (push to talk)
Ok, how is this then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
A thing of beauty. I've got that saved as a go-by for future mushroom TFAs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "stem": This word doesn't seem out of place to me, since you read the same word on any can of mushrooms, so I won't change it. But if I remember right, it seems imprecise to Sasata and some others. If the issue comes up, "stalk" seems to work for everyone.
Personally I am happy using stem, stipe or stalk - have changed to stalk in intro and introduce the more exact "stipe" in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "sporting gills with an adnate connection to the stem": I'm going to have a talk at WT:FAC sometime soon about my preference for leads that make more of an effort not to leave non-experts in the dust. I get that "adnate" is an important classifier for mushrooms, but couldn't we either leave it out of the lead, or give an approximate description of the shape? Something like: "... adnate (right-angle) connection ..."
How about this then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Forming mycorrhizal relationships": "Symbiotic with tree roots" would be so much easier for the typical reader, especially the typical Main Page reader.
part done - have left mycorrhizal in parentheses there as an important concept Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk)

Ride the Lightning[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's sophomore studio album. I think it satisfies the FA criteria and I hope to get it promoted.--Retrohead (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus[edit]

Thanks for bringing this article to review. I have read through it and I think the article is quite good, well cited and fairly comprehensive.

I think the language is at times a little terse and condensed - and that sometimes more elaboration and description could be added. For example the way that Fade to Black made several fans react negatively to the record and accuse them of having sold out could be elaborated, also the event where Hetfield felt uncomfortable singing seems to need some explanation (why would he be uncomfortable singing? and what happened when John Bush declined? Maybe Eglinton's biography of Hetfield has information on this?), also where they declined the offer from Bronze records (apparently Gerry Bron hated Rasmussens work and wanted the entire record to be rerecorded and mixed in the states! [described at some length in "Metallica: The Music and the Mayhem" by Dome and Wall (2011)]). Also there is some jargon (A&R people).

Thanks for the notes and your time reading the article. I've made corrections on the Hetfiled/Bush issue. Apparently Hetfield was not confident with performing double duty on vocals and guitar, but eventually gained confidence and the band moved on. If it reads unclear with the recent changes in the prose, let me know what to correct. Also thanks for expanding on the label issue in the same section. Made some c/e to be consistent with referring the band in singular.

I also think that the music and lyrics section could be elaborated with attention to each song, and perhaps with dedicated summary style subsections for those tracks that have their own articles (Fade to Black, Creeping Death and For Whom the Bell Tolls). Dome and Wall appears to have detailed descriptions of all of the songs - describing for example Mustaine's influence and Hetfield's vocals on the title track (enough, I think, to write an article specifically about this track). Certainly there is more to write about the music and lyrics of this groundbreaking album.

Each song has musical/lyrical analysis. I have a slight reservation about using lines from the book you cited such as "Mustaine has a real feel for melody" or "the music never goes far over the top" because the authors are mixing facts with opinions. I've used only facts in this section, such as tempos, lyrical meaning, etc.
I dont think you should use lines from the authors, but paraphrase them in a more encyclopedic style. And the authors of sources are allowed to state their opinions, and we can represent their opinions, as long as we attribute them as such. I think that at least a full paragraph about each song is necessary to make the section completely comprehensive.
Fair enough, I've used segments for "Escape", which had the smallest description, and I'll see what else can be incorporated.

At the same time, I think that some of the evaluations of the record should be more directly attributed - for example I am a little iffy at mentioning twice in Wikipedias voice that the record exhibited "greater musical maturity". I think this is a subjective evaluation and should be attributed either as a a general "critics have described" (if that is supported by the source) or by naming the specific critic(s) (McIver?) who have made this evaluation.

Replaced maturity with growth. About addressing the author, virtually all critics agree that Ride the Lightning is a more mature effort than Metallica's debut, which makes that claim a fact. Adding "critics think that" to "Ride the Lightning exhibited greater musical maturity, with sonically broader songs" is not that necessary for me.
I disagree about that. That several critics share an opinion does not make the opinion fact. Some kinds of evaluations will always be opinions and never facts - for example which album is better or "more mature" whatever that means - these are inherently subjective evaluations.
Alright, presented it as journalists' opinion.

Not being familiar with literature on Heavy Metal music I looked through google scholar and turned up only a couple of sources that could be used but are not. Glenn Pillsbury's 2013 "Damage Incorporated: Metallica and the Production of Musical Identity" has an entire chapter on Fade to Black and the way that it challenged Thrash fan identity by incorporating elements from other genres. An MA thesis by Aglulub analyzes the development of Metallica's riffs and has an analysis of the riff in Creeping death - even though it is not technically published i think it might be suitable as a source.

I've read Pillsbury's analysis on "Fade to Black" and wrote why the song disappointed some fans at the time. The chapter is really detailed and it would certainly serve the song's article well. I'm just not sure where you draw the line what falls under the album's topic. If you have something specific apart from revolutionizing thrash metal, I'll gladly add.
I think that the songs of an album that has songs that are sufficiently notable to have standalone articles I think those songs need to have subsections summariing those articles. I also think each song on an album is inherently relevant to a description of the album.
Scattering each song description into its own paragraph and naming sub-sections on three songs is more of an aesthetical preference than a prose issue. My point was whether you think the current description of "Fade to Black" is good enough or do I need to further expand it with guitar tabs or chord progressions as written in the Pillsbury book.
I think it is a MOS issue actually, which requires us to summarize spin-out articles in the main article in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. And my basic point here is that I think the section on music and lyrics needs expansion with more coverage of each song, since those songs are clearly notable enough to have a more detailed description. It is off course a question of editorial judgment which details should go in the specific article on Fade to Black and which should be included in the summary of the song in the article on Ride the Lightning.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've included Dome and Wall's opinion on "Escape" as well as some anecdotes from a Metal Hammer interview I found regarding "Creeping Death" and "Fight Fire".

Reading the previous review I can see that some of these same specific concerns were brought up in the first review round as well - I think the fact that I noted them independently suggests you really need to fix them - maybe you should go back to the first review and make sure that all the comments you received there are addressed. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of them were mentioned here. There's the tour naming issue, which I believe other editors will comment on. Also there were suggestions to drop the Grammy award for "The Call of Ktulu" which I believe is not off-topic and not that necessary.
  • Having looked at the Wiederhorn source, I think there is more information that could be included. For example which tracks were written before the studio and which were written in the studio. Also the fact that during the tour immediately prior to going to Denmark their gear was stolen, meaning they had to arranged for gear for some of those concerts and that Rasmussen had to borrow amplifiers for them for the recordings. This aspect of their gigs prior to recording seems more relevant than the fact that they had to sleep in fans' homes. Also apparently Hetfield used the desperation at loosing his amplifier as inspiration for fade to black - which is again relevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The accident with the stolen equipment is partly explained in the third paragraph of "Music and lyrics" (the inspiration for "Fade to Black"). The bit with Anthrax lending instruments was added. Also wrote about the tracks written in the studio.

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

Support I've read through the article and am happy that this meets the FA criteria. One thing though, wouldn't it be best if the quote box in the Music and lyrics section be moved to the bottom? I think having the beginning of the section squashed to the left interferes with presentation, when it can be moved to the bottom left. Anyway, other than that, this article is in great shape! JAGUAR  10:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I dropped the boxed quote and added it to the prose in the first paragraph of the section. I could've put it at the end of the section as you suggested, but Irwin's analysis better fits the first paragraph because he discusses the overall lyrical content, not a particular song. I think it's less jarring this way. Thanks for the support and for reviewing the GA nomination as well.

Image check - all OK

  • Since the last FAC's image check (see archive1 on top) only 1 image has been added: File:Roseland-front.jpg with Creative Commons license, sufficient source and author info. All OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated.
  • Metallica and heavy metal (and anything else not linked) should probably be linked at first occurrence outside the lead.
  • I'm thinking the image of a building in the background section would look better if right aligned; the building faces the left, and the adjacent text would be less disrupted.
Moved to right.
  • "The song discourages the "eye for an eye" approach, and its lyrical themes focused on nuclear warfare and Armageddon" Why the change in tense?
Applied past to the first.
  • "Michael Kamen" Introduce him?
Described him as conductor.
  • Shouldn't the section "Background and recording" include "release" in the title?
There's a sentence about the release in the second paragraph of "Reception", so it's not the only section that exclusively talks about the release.
  • "first cover story for British rock magazine Kerrang!" You present the magazine only on second occurrence. Presentations should be on first occurrence.
  • Could any reviewer criticism be mentioned in the reaction section? It seems a bit fawning now, there must have been some negative criticism in even the good reviews?
The only negative aspect I found in books and reviews was fans' reaction to "Fade to Black" as a ballad. Reviews in general were extremely positive, and retrospectively the album is eulogized by critics. Even Colin Larkin in Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which was the least generous review, said nothing bad about the album.
  • To be honest, I'm not sure how the touring section is related to the subject of the article at all (apart from the very last sentence)? Apart from simply having taken place after the album was released? No mention of how the songs fared during concerts etc? Seems like WP:Coatrack, and could be shortened by half. Why is it important to the album what Hetfield yelled during a concert?
The Hetfield quote was because Metallica loathed glam metal bands and was set to perform in between them. Not that he says something essential, but I think it reads amusingly and catches the reader's attention.
Yes, but what does it have to do with the album? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Metallica (pictured in 2009) began using Ennio Morricone's music as its concert introduction in 1984.[5]" I think it is discouraged to put info in image captions that is not found in the article body. Also, I don't see why this info relates to the album.
It is related because concerts from that particular tour began with Morricone's "The Ecstasy of Gold" played on tape. I've seen other FA albums have image captions that repeat the prose from their section and I find it awfully dull. Presenting exclusive information in the caption was merely an editorial discretion.
As above, what does it have to do with the album? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • All changes look good, but even after reviewing quite a few articles about rock albums, I've never read one that goes as much into unrelated minutiae about a subsequent tour. Could you point me to some other promoted articles where this is the case? I suspect it is because there is not a specific tour article where this info could be dumped? Since other reviewers don't seem to have taken issue with this, I'm inclined to let it go, but would like some more rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The MoS guide on albums says it's allowed to write about festivals, supporting acts, on-stage guest appearances related to the tour in promotion of the album. It is up for discussion whether the coverage is too broad and has unnecessary details which you pointed above.
  • Support - though I still think the touring section goes into unrelated detail, the rest of the article looks good, and I think extra text is less harmful than too little text. But if other reviewers bring this up later, it should probably be dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lewismaster[edit]

I’m sorry for the delay in delivering my comments, but health issues and other works took most of my time. I’m not an expert in FAC, as I passed through the process only once, but I think that the article is well written and appropriately referenced. I found only some minor issues mostly in the section Background and recording. Lewismaster (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • The album artwork is cited in the lead, but there is no text or reference about it in the rest of the article. You should add a description and something about its production in one of the sections of the main article.
Wrote a sentence about the production. The artwork is referenced in the middle of the second paragraph from "Background and recording" (ref 11).
Background and recording
  • "The album was seen as the birth of thrash metal", seen by whom? The sentence appears excessive and inaccurate, especially coming from Malcolm Dome, who coined the term thrash metal in a review for Fistful of Metal and in other statements declared Venom as the originators of that subgenre. You wrote much better in the Kill 'Em All article "regarded as a groundbreaking album for thrash metal" or "considered crucial in the thrash metal genesis".
Re-wrote it as "helped to establish". This way it doesn't imply that one album was single-handedly responsible for creating a genre, just that it helped defining and popularizing it.
  • I think you should switch or change a little the next two sentences. It is not clear during which tour Metallica were guests at fans' homes. If they composed the songs after finishing the Kill 'Em All promotional tour, in which concerts were they playing new songs? Are you talking about a second tour where they took advantage of their fan's homes?
The tour for Kill 'Em All was named Kill 'Em All Tour. After the tour ended, Metallica wrote some songs for Ride the Lightning and then started playing clubs. That was when members stayed at fan's homes, but it wasn't a classic tour (it's not named), just a number of gigs. I see I wrote it as "throughout the tour" and I'll change that. Have an idea what to replace it with?
Maybe "while completing this round of club gigs." Lewismaster (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wrote "while playing club gigs across the US".
  • Again a small problem of pacing. The sentences about the choice of the producer, Rasmussen 's opinions and Mercyful Fate practice room should be placed before the start of recording, IMO.
  • I don’t want to fuel an endless controversy, but you should at least hint at why Ulrich needed teaching in basic drumming.
This was handled by Maunus, very kind of him.
  • "Although four tracks were already arranged, the band members were not used to creating songs in the studio, as they had not done so for Kill 'Em All". This sentence is about composition and not recording and maybe it would be better placed at the beginning of the period, after the selection of riffs. Lewismaster (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This happened while recording. The band simultaneously recorded the finished songs and put finishing touches on others.
So maybe this way it is more clear: "While recording and putting finishing touches on four already arranged tracks, the band members learned how to create songs in the studio, as they had not done so for Kill 'Em All." Lewismaster (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Done, although I explicitly mentioned which tracks were created in Copenhagen, and that the four already written songs were slightly modified.

I dug out my vinyl LP of Ride the Lightning, which is a Music for Nations issue and there are a couple of discrepancies about the credits, that maybe you can explain.

  • On the LP sleeve the album results produced by Metallica assisted by Flemming Rasmussen and Mark Whitaker, who is also credited as concert sound engineer and production manager. Are you sure that his role was only as executive producer, as reported in the Personnel section?
I don't have the album on vinyl and I don't have a clue about the production. I bought a CD five or six years ago, but I've put it somewhere in the basement and I'm not very eager searching for it. The personnel is the same since I started editing the article, so if you can make the adjustments, I'll be very grateful. I was also surprised to see Whitaker listed as executive producer, but I can't confirm whether he is or not.
  • When this 1984 issue was released band management was still in the hands of Crazed Management from New Jersey and not Q Prime. Q Prime managed the band when the Elektra edition was released, so I think that a distinction should be done or, more simply, the management entry from the Personnel section could be removed.
I'm also ok with making a note that Q Prime Inc and Alago were on the reissue, or I can remove them if you insist.
Since CDs were introduced in 1983, I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that the album was released on vinyl, CD, and cassette at the same time. I've rearranged the tracks to read like on vinyl, though I'm not sure that's the case.
  • Support - I fixed the Personnel section using the LP and CD sleeves as sources. I think that all the other issues were addressed. Well done! Lewismaster (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Lazarus Aaronson[edit]

Nominator(s): P. S. Burton (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the English poet Lazarus Aaronson. Along with Isaac Rosenberg he was one of the Whitechapel Boys, and although he never received the same widespread recognition as his friend, he gained a cult following of dedicated readers. I created the article in early 2015 and have been working on it since then. In March this year it became a Good Article. It is rather short, but I truly believe that I have now have exhausted all available sources and that the article is ready for nomination. I am looking forward to your feedback. It would be nice to see the article on the frontage on 9 December this year, the fifty year anniversary of Aaronson's death. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - any chance of an illustration of the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The only picture I have found is this one, unfortunately it is quite weirdly cropped. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

CommentSupport Reading through. Its short, but I appreciate the difficulty in piecing together articles like this. Have reorganised the lead a bit, from four to two paras. I don't see an image as a possibility, giving that cropping. I would decorate more though, maybe another poem extract in the final "poems" section. The Radio Times page seems to have a wiki function, undermining it, so another source, even a fixed page from the same site, would be preferable. The writing and (otherwise) sourcing are very good - leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Now supporting, on prose, sourcing, formatting, and happily, image. 11:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing and copy editing. I agree that some more decoration would be nice, but I am worried that adding one more poem might be too much fair use for one article. The Radio Times archive page does have a wiki function, but the information is sourced to the original Radio Times, and the page is maintained by the BBC, with additional entries to the page needing approval from BBC staff. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, I think the article is short but comprehensive. I am happy with the prose, and while not familiar with the literature, the spuources seem to be of a high quality, and are consistent, though I dont like ----- for rerpeated authors, just list again. Comment: I was intrigued by his image being described as weirdly cropped, so I had a look. For a poet, it looks fine to me for inclusion in the article. Sandbh (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

third para in Life section needs inline references.
This has now been fixed. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
since Aaronson's poetry does not display formal innovation - I am not sure what this sentence means.
I am not entirely sure. This is the explanation given by Baker.
I don't get a sense of why he converted to christianity -is there any source material discussing this that could be used in the article?
I have not found any discussion of this in the sources. They do not make clear why he converted, only that he struggled with his religious identity. I have found one further source that might discuss this. If it does I will add information once I tracked it down.

Otherwise reads nicely. Can't really comment on comprehensiveness but not glaring gaps apparent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Casliber. Thank you for reviewing. I have tried to answer your questions above. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok points taken. I think it is comprehensive enough for a support from me and anything else is icing on the cake. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Sainsf (talk), & 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known, but interesting antelope; the first large African mammal to be exterminated by humans in historical times. The article is a GA, has been copy-edited, and was recently featured on the main page as a DYK, so it has already had a few eyes look over it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed, and merged the further reading and external links sections, not much of use in the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general the article is looking good. A few points I noticed:

  • "British zoologists Philip Sclater and Oldfield Thomas pointed out that the blackbuck (A. cervicapra) was the type species of the genus Antilope, and instead moved the bluebuck and its closest relatives to the genus Hippotragus in their Book of Antelopes from 1899." - This seems like a non-sequitur.
It explains why the bluebuck was moved from the genus Antilope to the genus Hippotragus. Not sure why that would be irrelevant, such info is rather standard in taxonomy sections? FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Its not irrelevant, but there is a gap in the reasoning. Why does having the blackbuck as type species prevent the bluebuck being included in the genus? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I was wondering about that too, but the source doesn't actually explain it. The source says "and placed it as the first species of his genus Antilope. We have already, however (Book of Ant. III. p. 3), given the reasons why another species — the Black-buck of India — should be deemed to be the type of Pallas's generic term Antilope, and in accordance with ordinary usage we employ Sundevall's name Hippotragus for the present species and its allie".[7] It refers to a page in the former volume, which just says why the name Antilope refers to the blackbuck:[8] I guess it is because the blackbuck is quite different from all other antilopes[9], and should therefore have a genus for itself, but the source doesn't state this explicitly... You think I could add something like "pointed out that the blackbuck (A. cervicapra), which is distinct from all other antelopes, was the type species of the genus Antilope"? I just did, hope it isn't too "synthetic"... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, it seems Sundevall was the first to move them to the genus Hippotragus, I'll see if I can hunt the source down... FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Yikes, seems the case is much more complicated than indicated by the main literature about the animal, with IUCN taking action[10][11], I'll see if I can sort it out... So thanks and no thanks for pointing this out, hehe! FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Solved that mystery then, well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "It has also been pointed out that the name was already published on a list of South African mammals in 1681." - What name?
Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " at each of the Hunterian Museum and the Zoological Museum of Amsterdam" - I think that "at each of" sounds awkward and would prefer the use of "both".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "A pair of horns is present at each of the Natural History ... " - ditto.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Roan antelope ((H. equinus)" - There's a stray "(" here.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The coat was a uniform bluish-grey, with a pale whitish belly and similar flanks." - What colour are the flanks, then?
Not sure where "similar flanks" comes from, perhaps Sainsf knows, the source simply says "Belly dull whitish, not contrasted on the sides", which I'm assuming is the basis for the statement, so I rewrote it as: "with a pale whitish belly, which was not contrasted on the flanks". FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Its limbs had a faint dark line own their front side." - Sentence needs attention!
Rewrote as "Its limbs had a faint dark line along their front surface". FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the description section needs to be consistent as to whether it refers to the characteristics as "its" or whether it just uses the definite article "the" - "its lip" or "the lip".
Fixed (took "the"). FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the same paragraph, the last two sentences need to be consistent as to which tense is used.
Think I fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Its horns were significantly shorter " - Since the previous paragraph had Pennant as the subject, the present one needs to establish what it is about and not start with "It".
Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "receives rainfall throughout the year while rainfall" - Perhaps you could replace one of these "rainfall"s with "precipitation".
Replaced the last one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Such locations could be the western margin of the CFR during winter and the western margin of the CFR during summer." - Is this really what you mean?
What is wrong? The source says "It is anticipated that blue antelope preferentially calved when rainfall promoted maximum grassland productivity; that is, in the western margin of the CFR during the winter or in the eastern margin of the CFR during the summer." But Sainsf is more familiar with that source... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Read the sentence again! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, double western! Good catch, fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "A 2013 study" - Since you refer to this study in several places, my inclination would be to give it a name (Faith, 2013) or somesuch. I might be wrong here.
Did it, I think it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The aforementioned 2009 study" - Ditto.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The bluebuck population had already declined significantly and its range had contracted when Europeans settling in the Cape Colony in the 17th and 18th centuries first came across this antelope." - This is just repeating information earlier in the section.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Around the time of its extinction, the bluebuck occurred in what would be known as the Overberg region (Western Cape), probably concentrated in Swellendam." - This information could be relocated to earlier in the section.
Moved up to the end of the first paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "They show six antelopes faced by a man," - Perhaps "facing towards"?
I think the point is that the man is also facing towards them, a meaning that would be lost if we only said they face towards him. How about "facing a man"? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments we'll respond soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All issues should now be addressed, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Phew, Cwmhiraeth, I've now added a bunch of new text, probably needs a check! FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I am happy with the changes made to the article and now support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I love when reviews lead to more content being added to articles... FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "too incompetently known": ?
Changed to "since too little is known about the bluebuck". FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Faith et al. 2013" (multiple instances), "Kerley": Generally, if you mention a name rather than saying "a 2013 study", we're asking for a full name (at first occurrence in the text) and some kind of quick description, rather than just dumping a last name into the text. After the first occurrence, "Faith et al." will be good enough, because the "et al." distinguishes it from Faith (2012). "Faith et al. 2013" is academic jargon, and best avoided at FAC.
Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally, more links would be appreciated. For instance, how many will know what "afromontane" means?
Linked some words, more? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Those were the two that jumped out at me, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Will fix these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Not much to say here; the article is in very good shape.

  • "Its mane was not as developed as in the roan and sable antelopes, and its ears were shorter and blunter, not tipped with black, and it had a darker tail tuft and smaller teeth": three statements joined by "and". How about: "Its mane was not as developed as in the roan and sable antelopes; its ears were shorter and blunter, not tipped with black; and it had a darker tail tuft and smaller teeth"?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "four mounted skins of the bluebuck are in existence": suggest "four mounted skins of the bluebuck remain".
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "In addition, a mounted skin": I think you can cut "In addition".
Cut. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Can you add citations to the captions that do more than simply name the picture?
Added to the drawing under description. Do you also mean the images that identify the subject as specific skins? FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Now added to all drawings that identify the specimen in captions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A map including some of the locations mentioned would be helpful in the "Distribution and habitat" section.
Yes, another map would be nice, but it will take some time to get it done, I don't have the right software for detailed maps with legends (would preferably be some kind of SVG map). But I can ask about it somewhere soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
OK; I won't hold up support for that, but I think it's worth getting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the blue antelope showed similar habitat preferences as the Cape buffalo": suggest "the blue antelope's habitat preferences were similar to those of the Cape buffalo". Any reason why you use "blue antelope" here and nowhere else in the article?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
How about the rewording? I think it flows a little better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, seems I forgot the first part after fixing the second, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

-- These are all minor points, and I expect to support once these are dealt with. One non-FAC question; any idea why the lighting in the infobox picture is so odd? Looks like they were having a disco in the museum. This makes it seems likely that the colour of the skin isn't well represented by that picture. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix these soon! And yeah, as you point out, the lighting seems to give everything a blue tone, even the quagga in the background, which should just be brown... Unfortunately, those are the only actual photos we have of a specimen... Would it be ok to note that this is not the actual colour in the caption? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine; not sure you even need to do that, really, as a reader can figure it out (as I did). Since that specimen I linked to seems to be not weirdly lit, and quite photographable, you might consider posting a request on the Swedish Wikipedia for someone to take a picture of it. But not necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Sandstein who took the photo, perhaps there is some info to be gained there... FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, as one can see, the specimen was in a glass box that was lit with blue light from the top. I don't know why they did that, perhaps to protect the skin?  Sandstein  14:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps in formulating a caption, I can say that it is the lighting itself that is blue, and not some kind of artefact of photography... FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a note to the infobox caption saying "The strong blue colouration is caused by the lighting". As for pictures of other specimens, I'm sure some will come along over time (as has happened with other articles), specific requests rarely lead to anything in my experience... FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. All looks good; I do think a map would help but it's not a requirement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, as is explained in the text, the prehistoric range of the species was also much larger, which could be useful to include in such a map, so I'll see what I can do... FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I can do simple SVG editing, so if you find an unannotated map of the right area that's copyright free I might be able to add labels for you. I use Inkscape, which is free; it does have a little bit of a learning curve, but it's not too bad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Cool! I'll write on your talk page when I have collected the right sources and maps... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • All images are licenced under Creative Commons, or Public Domain due to age - OK.
  • Sufficient source and author information, active source links - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Source comment (not a full check)

  • Groves, Grubb (2011) with "page 278" in "Sources" isn't used (however, an offline reference for this book with "page 198" is used as ref #19). Needs some cleanup - if page 278 is no longer used (?), the redundant entry should be deleted. GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, not sure what happened there, but should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh[edit]

Nominator(s): Modernist, Ceoil, Victoriaearle, John.

Biography of a major early modernist, perhaps the quintessential tortured artist, who consistently ranks nr 1 on the most visited visual arts pages. The first, 2007, nom was probably too soon. There was a highly informative PR since, with nuanced critical input from Iridescent, John and Tim Reily among others, which we feel we have now met, having spent several years on this. Hopefully it is not too fawning or salacious, though there was a lot of room for that. Several now retired and much missed editors were major contributors, esp JNW and others. Feedback, as always, more than welcome. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Well done for bringing this important article here.

  • self portrait or self-portrait?
  • still life or still-life?
  • Good catch - we're using still life and self-portrait...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not in Sources:
  • 154 Dorn, Schröder & Sillevis (1996)
  • 158, 164 Sund (1988)
  • 212 Welsh-Ovcharov (1998)
  • In Sources but not cited:
  • Cohen, Ben (2003)
  • Kleiner, Carolyn (24 July 2000)

Aa77zz (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Aa77zz thanks for taking a look. The sources should be fixed now. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "In February 1890, following the birth of his nephew, he wrote that the new addition to the famil "started right away to make a picture for him, to hang in their bedroom, branches of white almond blossom against a blue sky."[139]?" famil -> family, but this is still difficult to follow. Aa77zz (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "The family took walks together, and gardened in her large flower garden." Who is "her" in this sentence? Aa77zz (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

More from Aa77zz:

  • "Theo, sensing that Vincent has a future career, preserved his copies." Surely had a future - but I don't like the sentence as we cannot know why Leo preserved the letters.
  • "The letters were annotated in 1913 by .... She had the letters published in 1913." The repetition of the year seems odd - especially after being told that that Johanna was reluctant to allow the letters to be published..
  • "Pomerans writes.." Who is he (or she)?

Early life

  • "Messrs. Goupil & Co., 17 Southampton Street." add where: the Covent Garden area of London (and not Stockwell I assume)
  • "and that Christmas he returned home" - which year was this?
  • "but through letters maintained close contact." - presumably with Kee although she hasn't been mentioned since the middle of the previous paragraph.
  • "Kee's father made it clear that her refusal should be heeded and that the two would marry, largely because of Van Gogh's inability to support himself.[48]" I don't follow - would not marry? Aa77zz (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, all good catches. I think I got the lot. Victoria (tk) 19:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

More points.

  • There should be consistency in the content of the figure legends for the Van Gogh pictures. The Old Mill just gives the date, Portrait of Père Tanguy and Self-portrait with bandaged ear give the gallery but not the location. My preference would be to provide the date and to omit the other details - but consistency is required.
  • Each of the Notes should have a reference and not rely on those in the main body of the article. See for example notes 1, 8 & 12. Also some of the Notes contain links to external sources. It would be better to replace these with formatted references at the end of the sentence as in the body of the article. For example Note 7 "Vincent's nephew noted some reminiscences of local residents in 1949, including the description of the speed of his drawing." This needs a formatted reference rather than a link to (which doesn't appear to be reliable source). Aa77zz (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, agree re notes. I haven't a clue how to do this, so pinging Lingzhi. Re FN 7, agree about that too. Added an RS who mentions the speed at which Vincent was working. Victoria (tk) 23,:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I probably will have time tomorrow to look at the page  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Lingzhi, I just took a look at the notes sections and the refs for the notes are formatted inconsistently. Some of that might be my fault when I messed with the refs, but can you take a look? Thanks Aa77zz for raising this and apologies for taking so long to get to it. Victoria (tk) 16:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Aa77zz, Victoriaearle: I have been deliberately avoiding working on the notes because I believe I've seen three different editors working on them. Don't want to get tangled up with other editors, too many cooks spoil the broth, and all that. If things quieten down in that area, I'll have a look. Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Aa77zz, these are now done except for Note 7, which is beyond my ability. Thanks for doing Note 11, which supplied a template to follow. Victoria (tk) 03:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Another thought

  • The Catalogue Raisonné by Jacob Baart de la Faille published in 1928 is a key publication in the study of Van Gogh's oeuvre and should be mentioned in the last section of the article. The F numbers could mentioned in a footnote. Aa77zz (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, good point. I looked at some sources about it last night and see that it's been updated a couple of times, and I noted that Hulsker was mentioned as well. I'm mildly tempted to write a scholarship section but haven't had a chance to research properly or to think it through. It might be beyond the purview of this FAC, but we do have to include de la Faiile. Victoria (tk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: Aa77zz, I've not forgotten this. Still searching for a good source to use. Victoria (tk) 16:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This is now in the article, but without a footnote (I see what you mean btw - but that might be interesting in the de la Faille article.) Victoria (tk) 20:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Following on from the de la Faille 1928 catalogue, the article should mention that a number of paintings that were originally attributed to Van Gogh are now suspected to be fakes (or misattributed). The de la Faille catalogue considered 38 paintings as doubtful, Hulsker in 1996 added 8 more etc. A list is given by Walter Feilchenfeldt in his Vincent Van Gogh: The Years in France: Complete Paintings 1886-1890 on pp. 278-279 (which I can see here). Other sources are: Bailey, Martin. "Van Gogh the fakes debate." Apollo Jan. 2005 - I can only read the preview here and a popular account by the same author in The Art Newspaper No. 72, JULY-AUGUST 1997. see: Roland Dorn and Walter Feilchenfeldt 1993 "Genuine or fake? On the history and problems of van Gogh connoisseurship" in The mythology of Vincent van Gogh ed. Tsukasa Kōdera (Asahi/John Benjamins) pp. 263-308. There is also an interesting 2014 article by Robinson and Steele.
Maybe in a brief note, but we don't normally do this unless there is a big faking problem, which I don't think is the case here. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Johnbod here; mention it in a note but not in detail. I haven't had time to pull those sources, but I'll get to it. Apologies for the belated replies. Victoria (tk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Aa77zz, for the additions about the de la Faille. I like what you've done and I'm very tempted to redlink the catalogue. I think it would make a nice subarticle. Victoria (tk) 16:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Aa77zz: Would you mind striking through all your comments that have already been successfully addressed? Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: I've struck my resolved comments as requested. I'll take another look at the article in the next couple of days. Aa77zz (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is now greatly improved. I've an additional comment:

  • Self portraits: The second paragraph ends with quote from Van Gogh that is cited to McQuillan (which I don't have). As a direct quote it would be better if the reference also cited the letter itself. The text after the second ellipsis ending in "...may furnish motifs for very different portraits" comes from the letter from Vincent to Wilhelmina, Arles, c. 22 June 1888 in the translation There is another translations of the same letter at Neither translation includes text corresponding to the first part of the quote "exaggerate my personality". Van Gogh used similar words "Not wishing to exaggerate my own personality" in a different letter to Gauguin on 3 October 1888 Note that the translation from is rather different: "But exaggerating my personality also". In the wikipedia article it is very misleading to use an ellipsis to jump between different letters. (note that as a source is very much better than Aa77zz (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that we shouldn't use an ellipsis to jump from one letter to the next. It's been trimmed. Victoria (tk) 20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Support - After all the recent hard work this is now a much better article. Aa77zz (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Aa77zz; after your hands on approach and well observed suggestions, that great to hear. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Aa77zz for lagging here. Thanks for your good suggestions, helpful edits, and for the support. Victoria (tk) 17:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Appreciated, thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Lovely article, and many thanks for your combined efforts on it. I look forward to giving a full prose review; in the meantime, just a few points:

  • The "with" in the third line of the lead is redundant
  • "While there Theo wrote to him that he would no longer be able to support him financially. He walked into a wheat field..." etc. Needs some attention (some confusion in the personal pronouns). Perhaps: "While he was there, Theo wrote that he could no longer support him financially. Van Gogh walked into a wheat field...".
  • Why the American date form "July 27, 1890"? Most dates in the article seem to follow the British format.
  • The "Letters" section seems very oddly placed in the article. Is there a particular rationale for this decidedly non-standard format?

More will follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Brian, before we start tackling your points (and thanks for reviewing!): Regarding the letters - they are very important on a number of levels. First, they reflect the degree of Van Gogh's introspection, self-criticism, and self-doubt. Their existence provides a glimpse of his thought processes about almost everything, his art, his search for a vocation, his illness, etc. Beyond that, he was almost as prolific a letter-writer as a painter, and it's been suggested (by Arnold Pomerans, editor/translater to print of The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh (which I have a copy of)), that they can be considered literature - which is spun out in the article about the letters. All of the sources are littered with quotes from the letters, and that they have been made available online gives anyone access to them. When I first came to the article, five years ago, I didn't know about the letters but quickly came to appreciate their importance. Given the length of the article and that not everyone will scroll to the bottom, and given that Van Gogh is associated with his paintings and his ear, I think it's ok to lead with the letters. This, of course, is subject to consensus and if the reviewers feel we should move them down, we can. My only quibble would be that the bottom of the article then gets to be too heavy in terms of the letters, because of their importance in driving his posthumous fame. Hope this helps. I won't get the rest until a bit later, but wanted to address this now. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My 2 cents regarding the letters - without them we all would know very little if anything regarding Vincent van Gogh; he and his work might have been lost to history. We begin with the letters because it's through the letters that his career and life work came into the public purvey...Modernist (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I fully accept the importance of the letters, while querying the placement of this section in the article. I appreciate your reasoning, but nevertheless have my doubts as to whether this layout works best. Another problem you may wish to consider is that given the importance of these letters to Van Gogh's work and principles, they should be at least mentioned in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think your idea is a good one; and I've added a mention of his letters to the lead, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is a good suggestion. I've spent a little time in preview mode tinkering around, but I'm not entirely satisfied with any of the results. Do you mind if we put the issue of the letters aside for the moment? In the meantime, the other points have been addressed. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 11:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'm just starting a general prose review and will post back here in a couple of days. I'll do any simple and uncontroversial fixes on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's very kind of you. I notice the issue with Vincent vs. Van Gogh: I think that happened recently when some of my sandbox edits were copied over and I'd missed discussions during the winter (while I was gone) about how to standardize. Either Modernist or Ceoil will know which I should have been using. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Initially we used Vincent only when discussing both Vincent and Theo; otherwise we use Van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Modernist. I thought that's how we were doing it. I suppose that was my fault; will change them. Victoria (tk) 00:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are my detailed prose comments for the first few sections:

  • "Problems remain, mainly with those from Arles" – why do the Arles letters present particular problems, and what sort of problems are these?
  • "The period when he lived in Paris is the most difficult to analyse because the brothers lived together and had no need to correspond." Consider moving this sentence up to follow "...between 1872 and 1890", and rephrase slightly: "The period of Vincent's life when he lived in Paris..." etc
  • "Art historian and editor of the letters Arnold Pomerans..." British English gives a "the" to the false title, thus: "The art historian and editor of the letters, Arnold Pomerans, ..." etc. I think a slight rearrangement, to "The art historian Arnold Pomerans, who edited the letters, ..." might work better.
Early years
  • "His father, Theodorus, was a clergyman..." – unnecessary, as in the previous line you've described Theodorus as "a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church".
  • Does a clergyman father and mother from the petite bourgeoisie really justify what you say in the lead, that Vincent was born into "an upper-middle-class family"?
  • "rigid and religious" – is "rigid" the right word? Is it necessary, since you go on to mention her adherence to "Victorian respectability" (is "Victorian" apt, in a Dutch family context?)
  • "Vincent was a common name in the family: his grandfather, Vincent (1789–1874), received a degree in theology at the University of Leiden in 1811, and had six sons, three of whom became art dealers". When a colon divides a sentence it is necessary that the second part is dependent on the first. That is not the case here. Apart from which, the second part itself is a hotch-potch of unrelated info., and is confusingly followed by "His brother Theo..." without clarifying who "his" refers to. I'd reconsider the organisation of this entire paragraph, to give it a clearer chronology; at the moment it moves from grandfather to parents, back to grandfather and then to siblings. I've redrawn the last two sentences.
  • "gardened in Anna's large flower garden" – "worked in" would avoid repetition
  • "Naifeh and Smith" need to be explained, e.g. "In their biography, Naifeh and Smith describe him..."
  • What period is covered by "these years", when the relationship with Theo was "strained"?
  • "Vincent's profound unhappiness seems to have overshadowed the lessons and had little effect." Do you mean "which had little effect"?
  • "Just after Christmas in 1871 his parents moved from Zundert to Helvoirt". This sentence seems out of place here, where you are discussing Vincent's training. I'd find another place for it.
  • What is the "commodification" of art?
  • "Vincent prepared for the entrance examination..." – entrance to where?
  • "lodged with a miner until October" – give the year.
  • Both these last two are done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Etten, Drenthe and The Hague
  • "had a nice studio" – is "nice" the best adjective we can use?
  • "a strongly worded letter" – better if you gave a brief indication of its contents
  • "persistence is disgusting" – as this is a quote, it should be specifically cited.
  • "That Christmas he refused to attend church, quarreling with his father as a result, and left the same day for The Hague". "Left the same day", but in the next sentence he "relocated to The Hague in January 1882", which is some time after Christmas.
  • "Mauve appears to have suddenly gone cold towards Van Gogh, and stopped replying to his letters". When did this state of affairs arise?
  • "Perhaps lack of money pushed Sien back into prostitution"; speculation such as this needs to be specifically attributed, rather than just included in the citation
  • I'd cut out much of the last paragraph – anecdotal, too much of a sentimental/magaziney feeling, and as you indicate, unverifiable. Not the stuff of an encyclopaedia article.
    Yes. Have quote the "direct" quote. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Nuenen and Antwerp
  • "There was interest from collectors in Paris". This would I think be better as "Collectors in Paris began to show an interest in Van Gogh's work". You should also briefly mention what activated this interest. Was it Theo?
  • Yes, it was Theo. Will re-read, but my sense is "collectors" is probably the wrong word to be using at this early stage in his career. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Give a date (or approx) for the Cavenaile treatment.

Before I continue, can I suggest that one of the four nominators takes it upon her/himself to deal with a few of the more repetitious prose lapses? The "Van Gogh v. Vincent" issue seems to be in hand, but there are other problems. In particular there is the frequent use of the pronoun "he" or "his" at the beginnings of paragraphs; I've amended some, but they go on through the article. There is also some lack of clarity in dates – use of "that year" or "that August" doesn't always make clear where we are. If someone would make a general sweep and pick up these glitches, it would make my reviewing task quicker and easier.

A separate issue is that the link in ref 88 no longer works. This source (the National Gallery) is the only citation in this paragraph; did it cover all the content in the paragraph – the Theo-Vincent tensions, the move to Asnières, the acquaintenace with Signac, the adoption of pointillism?

I don't want to finish on a negative note so I'll repeat that I find the article fascinating and beautifully illustrated, just in need of further polishing. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for these Brianboulton. Everything up to "Mauve appears to have suddenly gone cold..." is from work I recently added and I think, with tweaking and trimming and clarifying, I've addressed all the issues to that point. I have made a preliminary swing through to replace pronouns with Van Gogh's name and will take another look later. Haven't gotten to the dates yet. Victoria (tk) 16:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Brianboulton, adding to my reply above: the section that formerly had footnote 88 with the National Gallery has been fixed and reliable sources in place. Victoria (tk) 00:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Have made furhter attemps re varying para openings. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No time tonight but a little note for Victoriaearle or whomever: I fixed the broken link which Brian referred to as note 88 (at this moment it's note 86), but that link to a definition shouldn't even be in the citations at all. It should be a footnote "See definition at blah blah blah". Moving that into footnotes leaves that entire paragraph unreferenced,as Brian's comments also suggest.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just left an inline reminder. I have to go out soon but will read about that section when I return. I've also had to try to retrieve Naifeh & Smith (for better or worse, good with dates etc.) from interlibrary loan, but will take a few days to arrive. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Lingzhi, when you get a chance can you look at ref 211 "Van Gogh, 2010 & loc (Memoirs of V.W. Van Gogh)." Cannot get rif of the bare url. 20:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Responses and comments noted. In view of some of these comments, and those of other reviewers, but most particularly because of the current levels of edit activity on the article (300+ edits in the past 48 hours), I'm going to pause my review for the next three days or so, to allow things to settle down. Keep tweaking, see you anon. Watch out for the BBC2 documentary "The mystery of Van Gogh's ear", coming soon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Brian. I'm working my way through and have all your comments (to date) resolved but not yet in the article. It will take a couple of days to move it all from the sandbox to article space. Interesting about the BBC documentary. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The documentary is on BBC2, on Saturday 6 August, for those who can get BBC TV. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. I imagine there will even more activity on the page afterwards. Update: I've worked my way through Cavenaile treatment, from your comments above. Victoria (tk) 16:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I paused my review five days ago, in the hope that the level of editing on the article might stabilise, but since then there have been more than 600 edits to it. Also, I note that the article's wordcount has risen by more than 1,000 during this time, indicating that these recent revisions aren't all just tweaks and twiddles to the prose. The article has changed rather significantly, and judging from the edit history, the change seems to be a continuing process. There was much to admire about the article in the form in which it was brought to FAC, and I am sure there is a potential FA here, but trying to review in such a fluid situation is a bit like trying to paint on water. I don't think you're necessarily being helped by having half a dozen reviewers active at the same time, so I'm going to continue my pause so that other reviewers can complete their comments, and the article can achieve genuine stablity. Please ping when appropriate. (I'll definitely watch the doc, which as Victoria says might itself generate a new spike of activity). Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton, I just noticed this (I think I was commenting in another section when you posted). Thank you for letting us know. In all fairness, it's difficult to respond to the reviewers' requests without adding to the wordcount, but I suppose I understand your frustration (and fwiw, as a nominator, I'm slightly frustrated too.) Articles such as these by their very nature have stability issues, as Iridescent notes, and by their nature will attract a lot of reviewers. My experience with a similar article with a similar number of daily page views that I managed to get through FAC as my first FA (inexperienced as I was and still am) is that the FA adds greatly to its stability and being able to curate. In the meantime, there's not really a lot we can do about others jumping in, and we do need to respond to comments. The most number of words have been added to the "Style" subsections in response to the image formatting issue, which on a visual arts article isn't a small issue and we really have to get it right - even if that means some sections will have to be bulked up to support the requested galleries. Anyway, sorry, this got long. Will ping in case you're still interested. But from your comments, it seems that you're on the verge of opposing. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I am still interested, I'm not on the verge of opposing, and I do appreciate the difficulties you have with so many people wanting to have their say here. All I'm saying is that I'll step back for a while, until the reviewing scrum dies down. This is intended to be helpful rather than censorious. I'll continue to watch the review meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
On the understanding that the article is more stable now, I'm resuming my review. I've struck all the resolved points from my earlier review, leaving just a few issues to be addressed or answered – see above. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Brian, thank you for taking to time to check and strike - very useful. I see that a few were missed and a few were lost in the shuffle, but I believe the points above you've not struck are now taken care of in these edits: entrance to study theology; date supplied for lodging with miner; date supplied for "that March"; speculation about Sien's return to prostitution attributed here. I've looked at the batch below and wasn't as involved in those sections so handing off the baton to one of the other nominators and will pick it up again when necessary. On a sidenote: do you think we should be moving resolved comments to the talkpage? Thanks again, Victoria (tk) 00:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Victoria, my apologies but I have undone one of your changes: we do not in my opinion need to explain that the entrance exam was to study theology as it is clear from the previous sentence. I don't think we need to repeat that in consecutive sentences. --John (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You're absolutely right and no prob. I missed it a week ago and again last night, and I've made similar mistakes with the dates. Except for the note added below re his illness, I won't continue to work on the FAC, and in fact might not get to that either. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, John, I have to disagree. "Entrance exams" implies entrance to an institution, not to an area of study. Thus I would talk about my "Oxford entrance exams", not my "History entrance exams". Why not name the institution here? after all, you do mention the Protestant missionary school where Vincent studied later in the year. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Fwiw, in the US it always applies to an area of study/discipline, not to the institution. So I never would have understood what was being asked for there. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion Brian and I have implemented it. --John (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

...and here we go again. I have done down to the end of the "Life" sections – fewer comments reflecting the benefits of the substantial rewrites of the past few days. There are also various copyedits where I've corrected or revised minor issues.

    • Hello again Brian, nice to see you. I will comment in-line, if that's ok.
Paris (1886–88)
  • Is the correct expression "with" pastel" or "in pastel"?
    • Changed to "in".
  • Querying capitalisation of Pointillism and Neo-Impresssionism
    • I think this is correct, but I would be open to persuasion.
  • Why italicise "Grand-Bouillon Restaurant du Chalet"?
    • Agree, de-italicised.
Arles (1888–89)
  • "Arles" should be wikilinked at first mention after the lead – which I think is actually in the "Letters" section
    • Agree, done.
  • "in an exchange for works with Paul Gauguin, Émile Bernard, Charles Laval" should I think be "exchanges" rather than "an exchange"
    • Changed to "an exchange of works"
  • "That March..." – give year
    • Not done, see below.
  • " all intended for the décoration for the Yellow House" reads rather clumsily. I think I'd reword: "all intended as decoration for the Yellow House (no need for the French form in the pipe)
    • Agree, done.
  • "that June" – when?
    • Changed to "June"; should be clear we are talking about 1888.
Gauguin's visit (1888)
  • " Boch's sister Anna (1848–1936), also an artist, purchased The Red Vineyard in 1890.": This sentence interferes with the chronology and would be better as a footnote, especially as this is the first mention of The Red Vineyard, the painting of which is mentioned
    • Put into footnote
  • "...while Van Gogh painted pictures from memory (deferring to Gauguin's ideas) and his The Red Vineyard." Confusing and somewhat inelegant wording which I'm sure could be rephrased. The final "and his The Red Vineyard" reads most awkwardly. What "ideas" of Gauguin's was Van Gogh deferring to?
    • Changed to "Van Gogh painted pictures from memory, following Gauguin's suggestion."
December 1888
  • A "contretemps" by definition is a minor disagreement, so is it the right word here, bearing in mind Gauguin's version with open razors being wielded, etc.?
    • Changed to "argument"
  • I note what you say about the differences in view concerning how much of the ear was cut off. All I can say is that the TV documentary to which I've referred (broadcast on 6 August) produced specific evidence that the almost whole ear, with the exception of the lobe, was severed. Whether this evidence is otherwise available I'm not sure, or whether you need to take account of it.
    • Open to further discussion on this. Not yet finished watching the documentary.
      • I think it covers the various scenarios. We mention Dr Rey's sketch in the note; we cite the new book; we mention the ear was delivered to the hospital (had to be a substantial piece of flesh if not the entire ear), but like John, am open to discussion. Haven't seen the documentary. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "it is plain that he had suffered an acute psychotic episode"; as it stands, "it is plain that" reads as editorial opinion and breaches WP:EDITORIAL. You need either to attribute the opinion, or reword
    • Changed to "suggesting that he had suffered"
  • "Theo had proposed marriage to his old friend Andries Bonger's sister Johanna on 24 December, the day after Vincent's self-mutilation." Strange insertion, doubtful relevancy. Suggest omit.
    • Moved to footnote
      • Hi John, I would have done that too, but after today's reading when I realized that Theo received news of the self-mutilation the day he proposed, he then hopped a night train to Provence, spent Christmas day there, and then back to Paris the next night to Johanna, I decided to take it out of the note, because it seems important. I'm ok if you disagree and readjust. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " Paul Signac spent time with him in the hospital, and Van Gogh was allowed home in his company. In April, he moved into rooms owned by Dr Rey after floods damaged paintings in his own home." Where was VG's "home" to which he was allowed to return, after the Yellow House had been closed by the police?
    • I presume Signac's is intended?
    • If so, the text needs considerable clarification. Something like: "Paul Signac spent time with him in the hospital, and was allowed to take him home. In April, Van Gogh moved into rooms owned by Dr Rey, after floods damaged paintings in Signac's home." Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
        • This has been adjusted. Van Gogh mutilated himself, went to hospital, was released home to the Yellow House, had to go back to the hospital when he lost access to the Yellow House. Signac visited him late in March while he was in hospital; after that Van Gogh lived for a short period in Dr Rey's rooms. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Saint-Rémy (May 1889 – May 1890)
  • "Many of his most compelling works date from this period" – another "editorial" statement that requires attribution
    • Agree, removed.
  • "It has been suggested..." By whom?
    • Inclined to agree, open to suggestions on how to resolve.
      • Tweaked to clarify. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Toulouse-Lautrec demanded satisfaction, and Signac declared he would continue to fight for Van Gogh's honour if Lautrec surrendered." What was the outcome of this belligerent episode?
    • Agree, defer to Modernist/Ceoil/Victoria on this one.
  • According to Rewald - "Henry de Groux (a realist, religious painter VvG once admired) declared that he was withdrawing his work because he didn't want them shown in the same room with the abominible pot of sunflowers by Monsieur Vincent." "But he didn't pull out of the show. Instead at the dinner 2 days later he called VvG an ignoramus and a charlatan. The dual was declared between Lautrec and de Groux (who was the same height as Lautrec) and Signac said he'd carry on the fight if Lautrec was killed....seconds were named.....however an apology from de Groux averted the duel; and de Groux resigned from the group"...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Brilliant, I have added a sentence to clarify the outcome. --John (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Auvers-sur-Oise (May–July 1890
  • I would prefer Barbizon school without the pipe to "Barbizon", as the longer form tells me what Barbizon means without having to use a link. But I am also wondering about the whole sentence: "The Barbizon painter Charles Daubigny had moved to Auvers in 1861, and in turn drew other artists there, including Camille Corot and Honoré Daumier." What is the relevance?
    • Agree on the first point, and so actioned. Open to input on the second.
  • Relevancy is that it provided context to VvG for his being there to work. The fact that he painted 2 versions of Daubigny's garden and that those others were working or had been working there made his stay there more viable and more relevant to him. Vincent held in high regard the Barbizon school (I prefer that to Barbizon) artists...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Modernist, I thought that was the case. Paragraph structure reworked here. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Many of these works are sombre, and reflective of a desire to return to lucid mental health". Again, editorial unless attributed and cited.
    • Not yet done. Sure can be referenced.
      • See below. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I can supply a ref for sombre; will have to read re return to mental health. Hope to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Yet some reflect deepening concerns." – editorial again (you could easily omit this)
    • Not yet done, neutral.
    • I've now removed both of these, well spotted. --John (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
      • This will need a bit of re-reading but I think it's worth keeping. He was under considerable pressure in those last days and scholarly opinion tends to lean towards the belief that the last painting reflected his concerns. Will try to get to it tomorrow. Modernist, what does Rewald have to say about this? Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
      • About sombre and desire to return to mental health: imo, these points are important and should stay in. These last paintings, his last days, his moods, are extensively discussed throughout the sources. He was concerned about his health, about being a burden on Theo who provided Vincent support, about failing as an artist. It's generally accepted that the last paintings are sombre; I'd prefer not attribute to a single art historian here because that would single out. Nor would I want to put in a stream of refs proving that every one of the nine or ten books I'm currently surrounded by say essentially the same thing. I have added two refs there, which should suffice. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Death (July 1890)
  • We've reached July in the chronology, so it's disconcerting that the section begins: "Van Gogh underwent a further crisis in February 1890." I feel we've covered this ground adequately in earlier sections, and the whole first paragraph could be dropped or absorbed into earlier text, so that the section begins: "On 27 July 1890, aged 37..."
    • Moved into chronological order.
  • "Any of these could have been the culprit..." These needs an "according to" attribution.
    • Not yet done, sure it can be referenced. --John (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I thought we could easily use the source there to reference (Blumer), but after reading it today, I'm not at all convinced we should be using it. It's been in the article since it was added on 5 March 2006, [12] to cite the many diagnoses, and stayed in that position for years. The language about epilepsy and the wording re "culprit" has been in the article since 8 January 2006, [13]. Except for the text having been shoved around a bit and tweaked, the ref shoved around, it's all substantially the same as it was a decade ago. I'd like a small amount of time to dig into this and to verify and so on. I did find a promising article on Jstor last week, shelved it without taking the time to download, but have lost access. I will try to beg access from someone. Alternately I would like to suggest we simply follow Hughes' premise who writes "what his illness was, nobody can say." (Hughes, (2002), p. 8). In my view, we should avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that Vincent suffered from epilepsy without a very strong source to lean on. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. Van Gogh wrote from Arles that the townspeople regarded him "a madman or an epileptic" — letter 589
  2. "Most epileptics bite their tongue and injure themselves. Rey told me that he had seen a case where someone had mutilated his own ear, just as I did, and I think I heard a doctor from here, who came to see me with the director, say that he too had seen it before." — Vincent to Theo, letter 592
  3. "I have every reason to believe that the attack which he has had is the result of a state of epilepsy" — letter from Dr. T. Peyron to Theo van Gogh
  4. Doiteau, V. and Leroy, E. La Folie de Vincent van Gogh, Paris, Éditions Æsculape, 1928.
  5. for example, Vinchon, J. 'Diagnostic de la "folie" de van Gogh,' in Historie de la Médecine Communications présentées à Paris â la Société Francaise d'Histoire de la Médecine en 1960 1960, pages 23 - 24, and Godlewski, G. 'Vincent van Gogh, prince des maudits' in Diamant Actualités Médicales, 1982, Volume 29, 12-16.
  6. Arnold, page 172 --John (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, Dr Rey diagnosed him with epilepsy (see these notes), but what concerns me is that we say twice in the lead that he was a mad or a madman and I think we should avoid suggesting that having a seizure disorder = madness/mental disorder (because it doesn't). From what I'm reading, in France at that period mental disorders were defined as a "type of mental epilepsy" unlike the traditional definition of epilepsy or the modern definition of seizure disorders. I have managed to pull an article from an academic database but only skimmed it and I will take a closer look again at Blumer, which I'm a little uncomfortable using as a source or as the only source. Happy to move the discussion to FAC talk or the article talk to explain my concerns more in depth. I'd only want to adjust slightly and swap a couple of sources; will try to be as swift as possible. Victoria (tk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • For now I have trimmed out those like neurosyphilis and schizophrenia for which there is no evidence. I brought in a reference from the Health article, but I am unable to verify it. Can someone else, or are there other references out there? --John (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, I have at least one more and want to swap out Blumer. Still working on this; I think it has to be done carefully and might take a little time. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Illness section is now sorted, thanks to Casliber's edits. Victoria (tk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The final part of the review will follow soon. Much as I am enjoying this, I have a few other things that need attention! Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

More – not quite through yet but nearly

Artistic development
  • "Theo gave Vincent a donation, used to buy materials..." – a bit clumsy; suggest simplify to "Theo gave Vincent money to buy materials..."
    • Done.
  • " From early in 1883 he worked on multi-figure compositions, on which he based on his drawings." Can you explain more clearly what this means? I'm confused by "on which he based his drawings".
    • Reworded.
  • "received technical support" – do you mean technical advice or instruction? Otherwise, what "support" did they provide?
    • Not sure. Took out "technical" meantime.
    • Tweaked to say technical advice. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "intermezzo" doesn't mean interval, which I think is what you intend here. An intermezzo is a short instrumental interlude between the acts of an opera. In an older meaning it was a short musical dramatic work inserted between the acts of a play, and in fact the whole genre of opera arguably evolved from that format – but I must stop the lecture and get on. Sorry.
    • Changed to "period".
  • "due to lack of technical experience" – do you mean "expertise"?
    • Presume so, changed.
    • Both really. Small tweak to clarify. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would probably omit the first three words of the last paragraph.
    • Done.
Major series
  • " many of his early works could be described as gauche." Whose opinion is this?
    • Removed.
  • Who is Melissa McQuillan?
    • Writer cited in support at end of sentence.
    • Ceoil? Modernist? Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Pinging: Ceoil? Modernist? Victoria (tk) 15:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      Clarified. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Two close "believes". Perhaps one could be "supposes", "suggests", "posits" etc?
    • Changed.
  • " but my means of..." I think that's a typo for "by", but it's in a quote, so...
    • Changed to "by means of".
  • "Regarding La Berceuse, we have "It had..." and "it appears to be..." in quick succession. We ought to keep tenses consistent.
    • Made tense consistent.
  • "encircling the head with a background halo". I see this is cited to McQuillan, but is it McQuillan's voice? The next para also ends with a McQuillan citation where it's clearly not her voice.
    The quote isn't very clear, and now removed. I see the bit about the halo is also gone. Ceoil (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    I swapped it with another quote, [14], and see comment below. Victoria (tk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Don't have McQuillan; swapped the source, added a direct quote (it's longer but I can live with it; it's an important painting). Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Brian can you clarify what you mean that the "next para also ends with a McQuillan citation where it's clearly not her voice."?? I'm confused. I'm talking about the second paragraph in the "Self Portrait" section. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The text has changed and I'm not sure what I meant now. Don't worry about it any more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Van Gogh painted several landscapes with flowers, including roses, lilacs, Irises, and Sunflowers: I don't think the links work properly here, in a sentence where you are listing subjects of paintings (roses, lilacs, irises and sunflowers etc) rather than actual paintings. The Sunflowers painting is already linked earlier in the text, and Irises a little further down.
    • Agree, unlinked.
  • "Both are built..." – is that "Both series..."?
    • Both series. Clarified.
  • Third para needs a lead-in, to give context: "In these series, Van Gogh was not preoccupied..."
    • Done.
  • "The only painting Van Gogh completed during Gauguin's first visit was Van Gogh Painting Sunflowers" – Eh? Names transposed, surely?
    • Swapped names.
  • "It represents an exalted experience of reality," – whose choice of words? Sounds like it should be in quotes. Does the citation at the end of the paragraph cover everything in it?
  • I don't believe it's a direct quote, but will check and either supply a ref or trim out. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Big sigh. I've left this in. When I read about Van Gogh's beliefs about nature and what he tried to achieve in his paintings of the natural world, I'm often reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Nature. Not sure how many of you are familiar with it, but I believe he and Van Gogh shared the same beliefs. Van Gogh perceived that in Nature (with a capital N) one could see (if one looked carefully) the hand of God (for a better word). Hence, some of these paintings, particularly Starry Night and Cypress and Star can be seen as his personal religious iconography in which Nature is exalted to the sublime, which was done in the stylization/abstract. If that makes any sense? Regardless, I might have been the person to add that word, really can't remember, but I think it should stay in. That's many words to say that I've added many refs. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Tempted to strike the big post above. Anyway, the language here is being picked up on mirror sites and I see that we once had a blockquote there citing Pickvance, but without that source to check whether the quote is accurate I've done the best I can. Modernist do you have Pickvance? If not, let's just reword (but I'd still keep exalted). Victoria (tk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Found the original quote under about five layers of wallpaper and paint and more wallpaper. Yes, it's from Pickvance. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deleted now. Victoria (tk) 12:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " The transience of the blossoming trees, and the passing of the season, seemed to align with his sense of transience..." Repetition. The second "transience" could be "ephemera", or if that's too flighty, "impermanence".
    • Changed to "impermanence".
  • "and it presented him with a world of Japanese motifs which he revelled in". What's the connection? How did the "transience of the blossoming trees..." etc present VG with "a world of Japanese motifs"?
  • The transience of blossoming trees is a strong motif in Japanese art but it's not well presented. Cut out. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarified. I hope. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Van Gogh was consumed by..." Not sure about "consumed by" in this context. A better word might be "fascinated", or if that's not strong enough, maybe "enthralled" or "infatuated with"
  • Appears to be gone. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Wheat fields
  • "The weather worsened in July..." – which July?
    • 1890. Thanks for your thoughtful and highly diligent review. Only a very few points outstanding on which I will need to defer to Modernist, Ceoil or Victoriaearle. Look forward to resolving them and to your final review. --John (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks John for taking care of so many of these and I echo your words re Brian's excellent review. Brian I hope to take care of the outstanding issues at the soonest tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

My final comments

  • " After Van Gogh's first exhibitions in the late 1880s, his reputation grew slowly but steadily among artists, art critics, dealers and collectors.[255] In 1887 André Antoine installed Van Gogh's paintings alongside those of Georges Seurat and Paul Signac, at the Théâtre Libre in Paris; some were acquired by Julien Tanguy." All this seems to contradict the lead, which says: "He sold only one painting during his lifetime and was largely unnoticed by critics until his suicide, aged 37". It's probably the lead sentence that needs amending.
    • Lead changed to "He sold only one painting during his lifetime and became famous after his suicide, aged 37, which followed years of poverty and mental illness."
  • Within the quote: "even though the populace has not crowned to a magnificent funeral". Are you sure it says "crowned" rather than "crowded"? It makes no sense otherwise.
    • Ceoil has fixed.
  • "Theo had been the sole support of his family, and Van Gogh-Bonger was left..." I think in this context I'd call her Johanna (consistent with "Theo")
    • Done.
  • "... and the near-valueless works of her brother-in-law." Needs qualifying, since in fact they were far from valueless. I suggest: "... and what she assumed were the near-valueless works of her late brother-in-law."
    • Changed to "and the presumed near-valueless works of her brother-in-law."
      • Interjecting: I'd like us to check into this. Per the sources Johanna still had an almost full collection of his hundreds of works as late as 1906, so they weren't flying out to collectors, nor was she earning money from them. We need to explain that this woman, a widow after not even two years of marriage, found herself in possession of not only her husband's but her brother-in-law's possessions. They really were valueless at that point, and that she had to the sentimentality, fortitude, whatever it was to keep them is probably one of the only reasons we still have the paintings. I wouldn't want to suggest in the article that she kept the paintings because they were far from valueless, because that would be incorrect. Victoria (tk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Added a direct quote and moved it all to a note for now. Open to discussion. Victoria (tk) 16:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Van Gogh's first critical supporter..." reads ambiguously. I assume you mean the first art critic to support VG – but was he truly the first? Perhaps something like: "one of Van Gogh's earliest supporters among the critics..."?
    • Done.
  • I would link "Fauve movement" as it hasn't been mentioned since the lead
    • It's mentioned just above and linked as [[Fauvism|Fauvist painter]]
The museum
  • Only some general ce and slight prose reorganisation
Romanticised life
  • "...thus allowing projection by a wide variety of geographically and temporally dispersed view points". I'm afraid I can't make sense of that wording.
    • Changed to "allowing projection by a wide variety of audiences"
  • "His mental difficulties were never diagnosed, do not easily fit into any category and are thus left open". "Unexplained may be better than "open". And I wonder if the central phrase "do not easily fit into any category" is redundant. If the mental episodes were never diagnosed, they obviously couldn't be categorised.
    • Done
  • "everyman": The link is to a rubbish article, and I wouldn't use it. It would be better to explain what is meant in this article.
    • Done
  • "...he preferred rural settings, sometimes as a pauper." I don't think he ever preferred being a pauper, rather it was sometimes a consequence of his wish to work in rural settings. I'd tweak this to "he preferred rural settings, sometimes living as a pauper."
    • Done, and well seen
  • " He was single for most of his years" – "single" means unmarried, so he was single all his life. I would omit this short sentence entirely.
    • Done
  • I find it a little odd that the broad summary of Van Gogh's life and career contained in the penultimate paragraph is cited to a single page of one source. Surely many writers expressed themselves on this remarkable career, and we should have a range of views and a couple of quotations.
    Yes, looking. 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    Brain, working through this. As Iridescent pointed out in the PR its perhaps the main reason why well informed readers might look up the page and give a 30 second scan. Not sure its rightly structured yet, and am considering. Iridescent you have been pinged as as one such reader (though with a larger attention span), guidance and a POV would be appreciated. Re cites; yes Brian, np. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    On looking closely at it, I think the last couple of paragraphs here are problematic; to give a couple of examples, the Impressionists were certainly not "universally appealing" (a lot of critics loathed them, then and now), and He considered his art as more a line in the continuum rather than a break from the past describes every artist; even people like Picasso and Wyndham Lewis who are seen in hindsight as representing a clean break, saw themselves at the time as the heirs of Cezanne and Kandinsky respectively. The problem is, this article is effectively biographies of two people: Van Gogh the artist, and the comic book superhero Vincent the Mad Genius who Saved the World of Art. This section is necessary to explain how and why the "inventor of modern art" myth came about and that it isn't true, but it's a very tricky thing to write; in an ideal world we'd have point-by-point list of the Facts Everyone Knows ("he invented modern art", "he cut off his ear to impress a prostitute", "his style was unique at the time", "he was the first artist to work in bright colours", "nobody at recognised his talents until after he died", "he saw visions and painted his hallucinations"...) with an explanation in each case as to why it's untrue and what the reality was, but that's not really practical in the Wikipedia format. (I would expect to see Lust for Life mentioned, though, as that's where the fictionalised version of his life really enters the mainstream.) ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Iridescent - I don't exactly understand or agree with this: To modern tastes, Van Gogh's career lies between the now universally appealing Impressionists, while also providing a connection to the more alienating non-figurative abstractions of the 1900s and 1910s. He is considered an important Post-Impressionist along with Gauguin, Cezanne, Seurat, and Lautrec who extended the definition of advanced painting beyond the limitations of Impressionism; being in VvG's case an early example of Expressionism...Modernist (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    Just to note, yes, and this is now gone. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    Hi Iridescent, I'd originally wanted it all in the section now called "Reputation" with the idea that we'd simply present what happened after he died, his current popularity (i.e prints hanging in offices in Cambodia), a "show don't tell" type section, very dry (and in the version I wrote Lust for Life was included). But I suppose it became too factoidy, it went in another direction, and is now something else. The newer section called "Romanticised life" I would have thought could have been part of that what was supposed to be a reputation section, but I think I lost the plot somewhere along the lines or a request went over my head. I don't even know why I'm replying to this post, (because yours is in reply to Ceoil) except to say that in my view it can all be condensed, summarised, squeezed down. Very difficult to do with the swarm of editing we've seen. Which in itself proves the point. Victoria (tk) 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry Vic, but I couldn't disagree more, and the danger here is hagiography. Show dont tell is fine for minority interest articles, where a certain knowledge can be assumed, but not for this.[Striking as realise I was in error 21/8/16] Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I didn't express that well (what I meant was that what I tried did not work) and disagreement is ok, it's how we get things to where they should be and is a normal part of collaboration. I might sandbox some ideas later today; don't want to clog up this page any more, and apologies for the post above. Pre-coffee you know. Always a bad idea. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Understood V. Ceoil (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
note this was kicked around a fair bit tonight between the nominators, the content of the sect is stable. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, what we are missing from the very well informed request is that "it isn't true", but thats a can of worms I like to leave closed. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Also re "cited to a single page of one source"; moot now, given the restructuring. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " have been described as" always brings the questuin "by whom?" This needs to be stated; likewise the strong opinions expressed in the last paragraph about the letters must not read like Wikipedia's judgement. They must be attributed; citation is not enough.
On images: Normally I would say that 90+images is far too many. In this particular case I find the selection of paintings irresistible – perhaps the most attractive feature of the article. I would argue against the removal of any of these. If you want to lose an image or two, some of the non-paintings are less essential – Mrs Bonger-whatsit hardly merits an image. But please leeave the paintings be if you possibly can.
This is a particularly wonderful statement and underscores the attention Modernist and Ceoil have lavished over the years on the visual arts aspect of this visual arts article. Victoria (tk) 02:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This has been one of my longest-ever reviews, and one of the most satisfying. I look forward to supporting the article's promotion in due course.

  • I really appreciate the time, care and thought you have put into it. Only a very few outstanding points left now I think. --John (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, echoing John. Meant to get here earlier, but multitasking <cough> watching Olympics. A few outstanding points left; hope to pick up again tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 02:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Working through, but re "longest ever reviews", I am not likely to forget "[15]", and the PR. Brian is a reason why we can have nice things :) Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I was a young man then... kind of you to remember, though. There appear to be a few unresolved issues arising directly or indirectly from my review. Perhaps one of the team would ping me when these are finally settled. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging User:Brianboulton Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Support: I've not checked out all the responses to all my multifarious points, but I have every confidence in this team, who have treated my review with unremitting courtesy and appreciation. If there are a few loose ends still lying around I'm sure they will be picked up soon, and I'm not going to delay my support on that account. A great article which I am sure will have a consistently high and appreciative readership. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian, for the excellent review and for the support. Victoria (tk) 16:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Delighted!! Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for some amazing input...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Support. All the concerns I had were already raised and addressed at the PR. I appreciate that this probably technically fails criterion 1e, but I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye in this case; it's impossible for an article on a topic with this degree of editor interest and about whom there's constantly being new material published ever to be truly stable. (I would be inclined to drop the last sentence, though. That visitors to the Van Gogh Museum are familiar with Van Gogh is surely not a great surprise, and "visitors come from around the globe" could apply to any significant museum, particularly in light of the fact that the VVG Museum is slap-bang in the middle of the main concentration of hotels in one of Europe's major travel hubs.) ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I did leave out the example of the poster of a Van Gogh painting hanging in the office of an official in, I believe, Cambodia, and went for the more generic, but I see your point. Will leave to Modernist & Ceoil to decide whether to keep or trim out. I'm not fussed either way. In terms of 1e, it's a well-curated article, which helps. I run into a similar problem with Hemingway (about the same page views, and also protected), whenever a new book or movie is released. Thanks from me, but the credit goes, overwhelmingly, to Modernist and Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, we keep most of the new revelations out, especially of the "Van Gogh may have been suffering from..." variety. Last one we included was the naming of the 'prostitute Rachael', who it turns out was neither of those things. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I did trim out the info about the visitors from around the globe, a day or so after you posted here but it seems to have come back. I've decided to leave it in. Victoria (tk) 22:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Given that there have been so many changes since my initial support, I'll reiterate that I still support it.

    One thing I would say though is that I'm not at all keen on the fact that we now state Between 1886 and 1890, Van Gogh changed the history of art in Wikipedia's voice (and without even a citation); there were artists active in France in the 1880s who are widely considered to have changed the history of art, but their names were Paul Cezanne and Georges Seurat. The notion of VVG as a game-changer is a somewhat fringey view derived from The Shock of the New; one of the striking things about van Gogh (and a recurring headache for curators of the Van Gogh Museum looking to pad out exhibitions) is that despite his popularity he had remarkably little influence on subsequent artists other than Matisse and the walled-garden of early Expressionism. (Picasso admired van Gogh, but neither the Modernists & Cubists nor the later 1960s movements inspired by them were particularly influenced by him.) That said, I'm not going to oppose over a single sentence. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the The Shock of the New was produced 1980. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Reading again, I am also uncomfortable with this, is now removed, and is in part what the "Romanticised life" sect, horribly titled, is trying to get at. Idealisation has overwritten history, as that sentence, based on sources, shows. You were pinged above on exactly this matter, to my mind we have not settled yet. Ceoil (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Looking very good at first glance. Working through:
  • I have to say I really don't like the multiple image format, though I wouldn't oppose on that. Especially when there's above 2, mini-galleries are better, imo. Some gaps could do with images, especially a bright late painting (or two) opposite the TOC, as otherwise there's nothing really characteristic for some time after the lead self-portrait. There are also long stretches without pics near the end, and near the start some sandwiches that are avoidable.
  • I'll give small galleries a try as soon as possible...Modernist (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Done, for better or worst depending on the sect. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There is still a huge white space below the lead pic. On my pc I have to go 8 screens down before encountering any images that most would think very characteristic of VG, then a further 2 before Provence. I think this is too far for the average reader. Given the dissention the images lower down have caused, I think some should be shown here, perhaps as a "Salon des refusees" for those dislodged below. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Before I was co-opted as a nominator (which I was delighted and flattered at, and I hope I have done a reasonable job in), when I was reviewing the article as an involved commentator, I had a lot of qualms about the number and formatting of the images. Comments made by Brianboulton, Iridescent and Sandbh in their support and Modernist's passion have convinced me that the quantity of images is essential for the article. Ceoil and Modernist have made some adjustments to the formatting, and again I am now satisfied with how the article looks on various devices. I see your suggestion above about putting one of the later paintings into an early position in the article. I am neutral on this. Now wearing my nominator's hat, Modernist and Ceoil, would you support this change? Could it be done without disrupting other things? --John (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll give it a try...Modernist (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a fair point, and like Modernist's recent solution of two smaller images in the lead, which has also been used in other VA FAs. Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the letters at the start.
    I think they need to be placed and explained upfront as so much biographical and insight by art historians are drawn from on them. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A number of paras are too long - especially given the younger/non-specialist readership this gets. Look at the "Cypresses" section, easily split at "Other...", and perhaps also "Referring...".
    Have trimmed down as much as possible. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Still a few that should be split. Trimming may well not be needed - the paras are just too long on the screen. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there should be mention (outside the captions) of the VG Museum, if only for the size of its collections. I'd be interested in the number of paintings in the US, if you have it. The trajectory of his fame/value, and his large output, worked very well for US collectors and museums, and he is probably one of the first European artists with such a high proportions of his works outside Europe. His status as a Dutch national icon is worth mentioning, if you have sources. With being really good at at painting part of the national self-image, but not having produced any artists that even they could raise much enthusiasm about for some 3 centuries, VG has been seized on big-time. Generally a bit more peacock as to his massive reputation in the latter part of the C20 would not be excessive.
  • "There he lived in the so-called Yellow house,..." - check where that link go, heh, heh. It should be either "so-called Yellow House" or "so-called "yellow house"" I think.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Johnbod. I have the exhibition catalogue for the 1990 centenary exhibition at the Rijksmuseum and I think I can glean some information re Dutch national icon from one of the various forwards, including the tribute from Beatrix of the Netherlands. Re the US collectors, I think I might have seen a paper on Jstor that touched on that point, but I didn't bother to download it. The reading will take a few days. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure Beatrix quite hits the spot really. And isn't there a mistake in "The Rijksmuseum held an exhibition for the 1990 centenary of Van Gogh's death. The paintings came from their own collection and the Kröller-Müller Museum, which house the two largest Van Gogh collections in the world." - VGM & K-MM surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Johnbod, I thought that was odd. The catalogue says the Van Gogh Museum and the KMM are part of the Rijksmuseum? Are they using "Rijks" as a term I don't understand, or all these museums associated? Anyway, I've tweaked it and will again if you think it's not close enough. Agree re Beatrix; she's a little restrained. But until we find a source re his status as Dutch national icon, would like to keep this bit in for now and then add a little more when the little more is located. If that works? Victoria (tk) 23:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
"Rijks" (="reich" in German) means "State/National" in Dutch, and there are lots of "Rijksmuseum Footown", Rijksmuseum van Geologie en Mineralogie (now renamed), etc in the NL. Strictly the "Rijksmuseum" used to be the "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam", but they have now co-opted the plain term. The Van Gogh Museum is a "rijksmuseum". See List of Rijksmuseums and Category:National museums of the Netherlands. AFAIK the VGM never came under the "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam", but it might have done. Hope that helps (if you find that confusing, try Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation). Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I mistakenly gave you your own template (for a few moments). Yes, thank you. That makes much more sense and thanks for calling me on it. Victoria (tk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, a follow up: I've added information to the "Posthumous fame" section re the Van Gogh Museum and the Kröller-Müller Museum, and in the second-to-last para mentioned collections. After trawling through databases etc., last night the closest I can come are the lenders the 1990 catalogue lists, though obviously out of date. Cannot find any firm numbers. Will this work for now? Perhaps Modernist or Ceoil have a better grasp of this than I. Victoria (tk) 21:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
That's close enough, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Tried to remove two images crammed beneath infobox, calling them "decorative", but was reverted "per FAC", although I can't find any discussion pertaining to it. It looks sloppy and amateur, fails to meet MOS:PERTINENCE. There is something bold and definitive about the lone lead image, and these random additions subtract from that. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Try the section with my comments. I wouldn't have chosen a 2nd 1887 self-portrait I think, but the images are certainly an improvement imo. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Why are these specific images needed in this part of the page? How do they improve the article? - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The images look fine, no image clutter...Modernist (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's decorative, but why are they actually necessary? What are they adding to the article? Why should they be placed beneath the infobox? What are they illustrating exactly? - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
They are there because they improve the article and have made the article better; and apparently you do not agree. Read this WP:IDONTLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
How have they made the article better? And again, why are these particular images necessary in this part of the article, and what are they illustrating? Simply saying "they improve the article" isn't persuasive. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi HappyWaldo, see this comment at the FAC where Johnbod made his second request for these images. As a nominator I agree with their inclusion and think that's an area we can use to swap various images throughout the year. Here in the Northern Hemisphere in eastern North America we are experiencing an unusually hot summer and those images speak to me quite well in that regard, but I can see how that's a subjective decision. Still it is August and they show August (I believe). Anyway, I think this discussion should be moved to Johnbod's section on the FAC. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is gaining traction here so might as well stay for simplicity's sake. Images should help the reader as an illustrative aid, not serve to remind one editor what season it is in their part of the world. To everyone else who isn't engaged in the FAC, the images will appear randomly selected and placed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Victoria, Johnbod and Ceoil; move it; or better yet read this: WP:STICK...Modernist (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Modernist, can you at least answer my questions and present real arguments before killing off the debate? I'm open to being persuaded if you just put the effort in. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

P. S. Burton[edit]

  • Support - All issues now seems to now have been resolved or are under way to be resolved. I am happy to support. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is the letter to the New York Times a reliable source?
  • I find the article referenced on FN 230 about the Annenberg, and that's ok. Am I missing one? Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm talking about "Van Gogh Myths: The ear in the mirror". Currently FN 190. It appears to be a letter to the editor from a reader. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. I've replaced it. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Who is the publisher behind From what I can tell the site seems mostly devoted to selling art prints. Is it reliable?
  • These are gone. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I lied. I hadn't realize we still have refs to vgallery imbedded in the notes (nor that we have webarchives imbedded in the notes). I think I noted one of the biographies discusses how the name is pronounced - will have to trawl through and it might take some time. In the meantime, I think Lingzhi is the best to confirm whether the IPA is correct or not (not my field). Will try to get to these this weekend. Victoria (tk) 16:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • has been removed. is a different site, and judging by this article in the New York Times it might qualify as a reliable source. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes,, and reliable sources?
  • All gone except about the price of the painting. Searching for an alternative. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Artwolf is now gone, too. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The Art History Archive ( is still in the footnotes.P. S. Burton (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Removed now. Ceoil (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would recommend linking all letter to and staying clear of webexhibits. For consistency, it would also be nice if all letters are cited in the same way.
  • I've deleted a few webexibits and of what's left only one doesn't have a RS to accompany it (which can probably be located). I don't mind having them if readers want to look online, because searching in the books aint easy. Leaving this to the others for a decision. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok. But I would suggest that the link to webexibits in footnote 6 is formated fully instead of just being a link: "Vincent's nephew noted some reminiscences of local residents in 1949, including the description of the speed of his drawing." –P. S. Burton (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am worried that the extensive citing of Van Gogh's letters shows an over-reliance on WP:Primary sources. Be mindful of not including your own original research
  • See above, most secondary research is based upon them, and why the letters sect was deliberately placed before the bio. Not finding, cn you point me. is gone, euf, but at least ws one of two refs supporting a claim. The literature here is vast. Bear with us! Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Per Ceoil. One reason the article should lead with the letter section is to explain where the information about his life comes from. The letters are overwhelmingly used in the sources to the point that each source is littered with quotes. Van Gogh was unflinchingly honest and self-critical, extremely introspective, and there's really no reason, given the nature of his letters not to use them. In my view, every rule has an exception and this is the exception that breaks the rule. If I hadn't been reading hundreds of pages in books and seeing quote after quote after quote, then I'd be more hesitant as I generally am about using a writer's letters (i.e Hemingway for lots of reasons). Our options are to leave as is, because there really are an enormous number of scholarly reliable sources backing up the information (and I've just dragged home three more books from the library), add a RS next to each letter (which will take a year or two or five), get rid of all the letters and swap out with Pomerans annotated print versions (his analysis and annotations = secondary source). My feeling is that we've achieved a nice balance between scholarly reliable sources and the letters that readers can read online, and to leave as is. But as I said above, it's up to consensus. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "The letters were annotated by Theo's widow, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, who later said that she was reluctant to publish because she wanted to avoid details of the artist's life overshadowing his work. She had the letters published in 1913." The chronology hear is a bit confusing. Was it after the annotation or after the publication that she said she was reluctant? Could this perhaps be rephrased to clarify?
  • This has been reordered. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And apparently re-ordered again. Will re-read the source, verify, and note when she said that if the source tells us explicitly. (Sorry, can't remember off the top of my head). Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Apart from mirrors of Wikipedia, I can't find any mentions whatsoever of a Galerie Delareybarette. Is the spelling correct?
  • I was trying to work my way through that section and will return to it in a few days. Removed the paragraph for now. Victoria (tk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the paragraph. Yes, Galerie Delareybarette is correct; that's where he first saw Monticelli's work in Paris in 1886. That it shows up in mirrors probably means this article has been mirrored, but that no one has bothered to look in the deadwood books. Victoria (tk) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

P. S. Burton (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi P. S. Burton, thanks for reviewing. I think it would be more effective to post your comments here instead of tagging the article like you did here without an edit summary, for two reasons. One, when too many people are working the same page at the same time it causes edit conflicts, and two, when someone steps away and then comes back to the tags it's difficult to see who added them and when, but these are valid points that need addressing. We're working our way through the comments and hope to get here as soon as possible. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 23:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • P. S. Burton Your comments about webexhibit etc. are valid. These are things we have known about for a long time, and discussed on the article's talk page. I will fix them in the next week or two.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
  • Victoria Ok, I will do so. Just ask if the two issues I tagged are confusing. I think they both should be obvious enough to not really need an edit summary. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've already removed one and replaced the link with an RS (but I did want to eat supper first!). There have been many many edits in the past few days, which is wonderful - it's exactly the attention this article needs and deserves - but I'm having a bit of trouble keeping up. That's really the only problem, but thanks for understanding. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no problem. Take your time :) P. S. Burton (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a tag in the note saying the Gauguin stayed in hotel and arrived back at the Yellow House at about the same time as the police, which is well sourced and maybe even in Gayford at the end of the para (I haven't checked). Anyway, I have a cite for it, but seem to be unable to unbundle the note, so I'll get back to it later. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This has been unbundled and cited. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Two further comments on the letter: (1) This article says the letters were published in 1914 and not 1913, as our article currently states. Could this be checked? (2) Per this article we should probably say that there are more than 650 letters from Vincent to Theo, rather than more than 600. P. S. Burton (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • According to John Rewald some letters were published in German in 1906, some more in English in 1913 and the vast majority were published in 1914...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay. Will work through the letters section tomorrow. I honestly thought this had been sorted by now. Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pomerans says "more than 600" and that was the source I was working from. It's since been moved or something, I don't have the sources used there, so maybe someone else will pick up this issue. I've removed 1913, although technically correct b/c Johanna wrote the introduction before the publication, but as noted, it's confusing. Fwiw, I think "more than 600" suffices for the purposes of this article and the more minute details should go the subarticle. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The citations to the journal articles Arnold, WN (2004), Perry, I (1947) and Hemphill, R.E. (1961) should be formatted like other cited journal in the article. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noting. It's only been a little over 24 hours since those were added and the section is still under discussion so let's give them time to settle. Someone will check all the refs once the text is taken care of. Victoria (tk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This has now been done. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Citation 156 "Jules Breton and Realism, Van Gogh Museum" is a dead-url. Is it possible to find the original content online, or could this citation be replaced with a more stable source? P. S. Burton (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added another but kept the dead url for the moment (it's not totally dead, just goes to the museum). Let's give someone a chance to hunt that down. Won't get to the others right (below) right away. Victoria (tk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Dead url removed. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 233 "Letter 806" should be formatted the same way as the other letters in the references.
  • This has been fixed. (not by me). Victoria (tk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The content of ref 234 ( Van Gogh, Vincent (22–23 January 1889). "Letter 573, Vincent to Theo" . does not seem to support the text "Van Gogh painted several landscapes with flowers, including roses, lilacs, irises, and sunflowers" P. S. Burton (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've removed this, probably got misplace from somewhere else. Victoria (tk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that some language confusion might have crept in to this sentence which is cited to Hulsker: "He undertook, but also failed, a three-month course at the Vlaamse Opleidingsschool, a Protestant missionary school in Laeken, near Brussels." I do not have access to the Hulsker's book, so I can only see snippets online, but I am not sure that Vlaamse Opleidingsschool is the schools proper name, it simply means Flemish training college. Judging from these two letters 145 and 148. Also is seems to be a three-year course that he failed after three trial months. It might perhaps be better to write something like this: "In Fall he undertook training to become an Evangelist at a Flemish training college in the Brussels suburb Laken, but failed a three-month trial course." Although it is a minor detail it would be be great if the two letters and Hulsker could be checked to clear this up. P. S. Burton (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks P. S. Burton, that's a good catch. I've swapped the source and made a tweak (might need more) before I'm off on a break. I haven't checked the letters, but yes, essentially that's what's in the biography. Victoria (tk) 03:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Perhaps this could be further simplified and the information about the three months and the three years is an unnecessary detail that can be left out. I think that the main point is that he trained to become an Evangelist/missionary during the autumn months, but failed/"dropped out". P. S. Burton (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've put it back as written but left out Vlaamse Opleidingsschool, which as you correctly point out can be mistaken for a school proper name. Victoria (tk) 13:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you P. S. Burton for the excellent review and for all the work you've done. The article is greatly improved because of your suggestions and your many tweaks. Apologies for the delays btw, and thanks for your patience. Victoria (tk) 22:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your hard work; greatly appreciate your valuable input...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59[edit]

  • Early life, paragraph 1: "his grandfather, Vincent (1789–1874)" – is this the paternal or maternal grandfather?—Noswall59 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC).
Paternal...Modernist (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, well I think it might be best to clarify that, unless it has already been done. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC).
Yes, added "Van Gogh" to family to indicate paternal. If you don't think that's clear enough we can change to "paternal". Victoria (tk) 18:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's much better. I may come back to have a closer read through if I have time. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC).

Okay, I've got a bit of time, so I shall post some comments. While much of the article seems well-written, I feel the 'Posthumous fame' section has some awkward phrases and other issues:

  • who is Tanguy? (If he is already linked, I apologise)
  • what is "Le Moderniste"?
  • The repetition of the word 'champion' at the end of the first para is awkward. In fact, the last sentence refers to Theo as though we know him, and suggests that he was the first champion even though he did a year before Aurier, who is called his "first critical champion". Perhaps a better construction might be "Aurier was Van Gogh's first critical champion, but died of ttyphoid fever in 1892,[218] a year after Theo van Gogh's death, which had removed Vincent's most vocal and well connected supporter."
  • we jump from Joanna to Gauguin person without explanation and this felt a bit awkward
  • "wrote that Van Gogh's suicide was an "infinitely sadder loss ..."
  • The dates seem to jump around out of chronological order in the fifth para.

As a general comment on this section, I feel that it does not provide a clear explanation (or address art historians' competing opinions) about how and why a largely obscure artist in his lifetime became one of the most famous after his death. Maybe I am wrong, but I am not sure it all ties together so nicely in this final section. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Hi Noswall59, those are good observations. We want it to be as clear and accessible as possible to the lay reader. Some of your suggestions have been addressed but I think it needs a little more work. Will report back. Victoria (tk) 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Victoria. I appreciate there is a lot to do, and you are all doing a great job. —Noswall59 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC).
  • Noswall59, I tried to address a few of these points and will go through this section again. I did mention up-page that I'm almost tempted to add a scholarship section as I have in previous FAs, but the amount of reading required is enormous and should be done slowly. In the meantime, will do the best we can here, but I'd prefer not to just throw stuff at it without giving it a lot of thought. Victoria (tk) 22:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Victoriaearle: This is good, much better and clearer now. The chronology works and the awkward champion sentences reworked. The section flows much better. I have two comments. The first is that reference is made to "Bacon", which I assume is Francis Bacon (artist), but ought to be made clear. Secondly, I still feel that a more general comment placing van Gogh's rise in context might be helpful. I assume that his success after his death owed much to the more general nascence of the post-impressionist movement as part of broader developments in modern art; it just so happened that he died just as this movement, which encapsulated his works, took off. If we could perhaps have something placing his rise in a wider context, that would be fantastic. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC).
  • Thanks Noswall59 for striking and posting. Yes, Francis Bacon has been fixed. I added a sentence to the beginning of [16] that might be what you want. Please let us know if that doesn't work, because I suspect there are other sources that might delineate more along the lines of what you've requested. Victoria (tk) 20:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]


I probably won't formally support or oppose here as I have been extensively involved in copy-editing, but I wanted to query the image formatting. I see it has been discussed in article talk. I am uneasy at having so many images emphasised by non-standard formatting. It looks terrible on my big monitor, and the overall effect of so much emphasis is not an asset. Generally, images should be left at standard formatting, with a very few larger for emphasis. What do others think? --John (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I think having lots of pictures enhances the article. The appearance will obviously depend on the width of the screen. I've tried viewing the article on an ipad and on my 13in laptop. The ipad in portrait mode works very well with galleries as 2 x 2; in landscape the galleries are 3 + 1 which is less satisfactory. On my laptop it is mostly good but there is white space produced by having too little text to accommodate the picture on the right in Portraits after L'Arlésienne and similarly in Self-portraits. But the overall appearance is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not arguing against having "lots of pictures", but these two are problematic for me as well. --John (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added text to the "Portraits" section, but still having some trouble with the other sections. I posted a comment at the talkpage. If it should be here, anyone can move it over (I don't mind). I hope to be around less next week - I'm exhausted and have a busier week ahead. Victoria (tk) 01:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I do think this sort of formatting is counter-productive. User:Modernist, what does it add? --John (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
They are far more visible on large screens and they are important images...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
They are all important and beautiful images I agree. The trouble is they muck up the formatting on smaller screens. We have to have a compromise between the different platforms. A good starting point is to use the standard formatting and choose maybe one or two key images to display at especially large size. Emphasising too many this way makes it look very cluttered at smaller screen sizes. I have been looking at the page with mobile and laptop using different browsers. Another thing that leaps out is that there are so many images. Do we really need all 67 paintings (or whatever the current number is)? I know he was prolific but we need to be selective about which ones we show on the article. On a big screen they look great but again on a phone they make the article awkward to navigate. I think this is my last remaining qualm about this article's promotion. Otherwise I think it is looking great. --John (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a glut of second and third tier Van Goghs in my opinion. Some might be necessary for inclusion but many are not. I think we can begin by removing versions of the same subject, such as Wheat Field with Cypresses and Daubigny's Garden. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Those are first rate paintings make no mistake - it's useful to show the repetition and the fact that Van Gogh (who was clearly a sophisticated and knowledgeable painter who was aware of Monet who also worked and reworked the same subject) also like other of his contemporaries worked in series...Modernist (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

When I last worked on this in February, the article said

That evening, Van Gogh severed his left ear (either wholly or in part; accounts differ) with a razor, inducing a severe haemorrhage.[note 13 According to Doiteau & Leroy (1928), the diagonal cut removed the lobe and probably a little more.]

We now state:

That evening, Van Gogh wholly severed his left ear with a razor, inducing a severe haemorrhage. A note from his doctor Félix Rey, written in 1930 for Irving Stone and including a drawing of the severed ear, made clear that Van Gogh had cut off his whole ear, except for a small part of the lobe.

I am not happy with the language, especially "made clear". Where uncertainty exists, we should report the uncertainty. I am also unhappy with "cut off his whole ear"; the human ear is mostly inside the skull and cannot be "cut off". We are talking about the pinna or external ear, and that should be made clear. --John (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi John, I was in there early this morning and I think it all needs reworking. A new book was released last week or so, the section got edited, edited again, fixed and so on, and is now the way it is. I'm waiting for a few books to arrive from the library next week (I had to return some and then reordered), because I think it's important we get that right. At the moment I'm not able to view anything on g-books and the books I have aren't bios, so decided to wait. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Adding, Modernist, maybe we should use Rewald's account of the mutilation? He seems the most accurate. If so, can you have a go at that section? Victoria (tk) 14:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Victoriaearle In his book Post-Impressionism From van Gogh to Gauguin pp 243 John Rewald says Van Gogh returned to his room and there, assailed by auditory hallucinations, suddenly cut off his left ear. and footnoted (45); on page 248 the long footnote reads: the question of whether van Gogh cut off his whole ear or only the lobe has given rise to many discussions. Dr. Rey and the policeman Robert agreed that van Gogh had severed his entire ear (a version supported by Gauguin although he probably did not see Vincent without bandages), but Dr. Gachet and his son, as well as Theo's wife and Signac, maintained that the painter had only cut off the lobe of his ear; the note goes on to say that Dr. Rey could not try to put the severed ear back in place because it came to the hospital in Arles too late. Rewald also mentions see Doiteau and Leroy: Vincent van Gogh et le dramede l'orielle coupee, Aesculape, July 1936.....among other things...Modernist (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Modernist. That's quite interesting. It's the most concise and best version I've seen and has the benefit of mentioning both possibilities, entire ear vs. earlobe. What do you think of re-working that section per Rewald's account? If we use that version we can replace the Doiteau ref I removed in this edit. I took it out because it contradicted the previous sentence. Victoria (tk) 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Victoria please give it your best shot...Modernist (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok. I will need page numbers. And I need to have a break for a while. Victoria (tk) 19:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewald, John (1978). Post-Impressionism: From van Gogh to Gauguin. London: Secker & Warburg. pp 243-248...Modernist (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was able to get a snippet of Rewald, and Sweetman's account is essentially the same, so that's nice to know. I've done a preliminary swing through. Does this work for you, John? And for everyone else? P.s, there is a newspaper ref in there that needs formatting, but I'm clueless. Victoria (tk) 22:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(undent) I'm way way behind the curve here so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said, but very recently on some history channel show or other I saw that recently-discovered sketches made by the initial examining doctor showed that almost the entirety of the external ear had been removed. The key words in that sentence are "recently discovered". I hope I am not opening a debate here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Those sketches were by Dr. Rey. The controversy has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't use any sources written in the last 25 years (except I left in the recent art news webcite for the girl's name, which I didn't read and may or may not be correct, because I was too damn tired to deal with it). I looked at the recent book but, no, don't think we can use it. That said, the section needed rewriting because of the recent activity. I've done the best I can. Anyone else can give it shot. I'll be unwatching here for a few days. Victoria (tk) 03:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all. I've moved the discussion of the various accounts of ear damage into the note; it's vital to include this and to cover the uncertainty but I think having the detail in the main text is a bit prurient. I think it is much better now. What do others think? --John (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I removed that he would have bled to death. This seems very unlikely on the face of it and is debunked in the medical ref. This is part of the myth, and not a plausible part. --John (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, good call. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • One (probably final) comment here; following some research, I thought the claim about reattachment would have been highly cutting edge in 1888. Possible but pretty unlikely. I made this edit to reflect that. --John (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's fine. It wouldn't have been possible - the technology is very new - but the ear was carried around. Still, it's fine to take it out. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Rather surprisingly, I found that there are accounts of successful nose and ear reattachments going back to Biblical times, but basically you're right, it wouldn't have been as routine a possibility as it is now. I didn't remove it, just altered the wording slightly. --John (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, didn't mean that it's gone (and have struck). Your edit summary made me laugh and I thought the edit appropriate. At some point I wondered about even having it in (I believe I added it), and I think I was channeling that thought. Victoria (tk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Editør[edit]

  • The IPA transcription and audio don't match: the first includes "Willem", the second doesn't. The best solution would be to link a different audio file with a native speaker of Dutch pronouncing "Vincent Willem van Gogh". – Editør (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added "Willem" to the audio. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Great! – Editør (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Painting thumbs should be standard size or standard upright size. Modernist reverted my edits and stated "per MoS" in the edit summaries, but this is rather vague and unspecified. Paintings are not diagrams with vital details that would be invisible in standard size thumbs (MOS:IMGSIZE). Thumbs will always be a poor representation of a full size painting, and an image scaled with a 1.3 or 1.4 factor isn't changing that compared to a standard size thumb. So there are better arguments for conformity than personal preference. – Editør (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The subsections of "Posthumous fame" are "Early popularity", ranging from the late 1880s to 1914, and "20th century", ranging from ca. 1914 to 1993. So not all of the 20th century is discussed in that latter, so I think a different title would be more appropriate. And didn't anything significant happen since 1993 including the sixteen years of the 21st century? – Editør (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This section wasn't mean to be a year-by-year description of what happened when, but rather an explanation of how a painter who was almost unknown when he died in 1890 quickly gained in popularity. If we've failed to convey that, then I think the section should be deleted or rewritten. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, the section "Early popularity" is discussing exhibitions during his life, which are obviously not posthumous. – Editør (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but again, this explains the rise of his popularity. Will work on it. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by HappyWaldo[edit]

  • Some suggestions re lead: the opener reads that Van Gogh "was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter whose work had a far-reaching influence on 20th-century art." This is certainly true, but does anyone else think it's too limited a description? Van Gogh's influence extends into the 21st century, and I think there's consensus that he has a timeless quality that few others possess, regardless of evolving trends in the art world. I think his unique place in the full history of art should be emphasised, something like: "was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter whose works are among the most famous and influential in the history of [Western] art". The next lines I think are problematic: "He was highly prolific and often completed more than one painting per day. In just over a decade he created approximately 2100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of them in the last two years of his life." Isn't this contradictory? He painted most works in his last two years, so it's not true that he "often" painted one per day. I don't think he was more prolific than other impressionists either. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I will look at those specific complaints but we are hampered by what the sources tell us. We must follow the sources instead of picking what we choose from the sources. Victoria (tk) 22:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Fwiw, no I don't think this is contradictory. People who suffer from illnesses are often unable to complete work. There were times he was quite prolific and times when not. Hence the "often". I think you're asking for a breakdown of when he painted prolifically and when not. Am I correct? Victoria (tk) 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • From the posthumous fame section: "In 1896, the Fauvist painter Henri Matisse, then an unknown art student, visited the artist John Peter Russell, on Belle Île off Brittany [246]Matisse had never previously seen Impressionist work, and was so shocked at the style that he left after ten days, saying, "I couldn't stand it any more."[246] He returned a year later as Russell's student, abandoned his earth-coloured palette for bright colours, later stating, "Russell was my teacher, and Russell explained colour theory to me."[246]" What's going on here? Three sentences in and no Van Gogh. Russell and Matisse's artistic relationship is rightly mentioned on their respective pages, but what is it doing here? Confusing way to go about explaining Van Gogh's influence on the Fauves. Should be removed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This has been trimmed. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see why it belongs. It doesn't explain Van Gogh's influence, just that Matisse received one of his drawings from Russell. What did Matisse or the other Fauves have to say about Van Gogh? Include that instead. Van Gogh's impact on Expressionism also needs coverage. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd be happier with letting these sentences go. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Frankly it seems fine to me - it clearly belongs - somewhat obvious - Matisse learns about Impressionism and Van Gogh initially from Russell and essentially invents Fauvism...Modernist (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I suppose what I mean is that the point could be made more succulently. Will address M, but in a few hrs. I agree with you on substance. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is a causal link between Matisse receiving the Van Gogh drawing from Russell and Matisse inventing Fauvism, then it could be summed up in one sentence. But I highly doubt this actually happened. When did Matisse come into contact with Van Gogh's brightly coloured paintings? How did this effect Matisse's art, if at all? This is far more relevant and should take the place of this Matisse/Russell diversion. Quickly scanning Google Books there are so many great sources that deal with Van Gogh's influence on Matisse and the Fauves, they clearly venerated him. In fact it seems that a meeting at a Van Gogh exhibition in 1901 basically kick-started the movement. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Having read the source and looked extensively at how it is presented in this article, I think it is a fascinating story but I think on balance I agree that as it stands it does not belong in the article. It says more about Matisse (and should perhaps be in his article, if it is not) than it does about Van Gogh. My worry is, it looks like we are trying to imply that Russell gave Matisse a Van Gogh drawing, and this changed Matisse's art. But the source doesn't actually say this, so there is a bit of WP:SYNTH going on. If a good source can be found that actually makes the claim, we could use it, but not on this. --John (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Given who Matisse is (one of the 2 most important artists of the 20th century); and that this episode took place when Matisse was in his late twenties and (like VvG) just beginning to become an artist - he was on a vacation from art school - and was unexpectedly introduced to Van Gogh's work is highly relevant...Modernist (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FWIW according to the source - Whether or not Russell possessed any of van Gogh's paintings, he certainly talked about them to Matisse. At some point the Australian gave his young visitor one of his van Gogh drawings–something he had never done for anyone before, and would never do again, which suggests that he found in no one else the depth and strength of Matisse's response. Matisse by the spring of '98 began to grapple for the first time with van Gogh on canvas. Maybe I'll add that...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Better summed up along these lines: "Henri Matisse learned of Van Gogh through John Peter Russell in 1896, and in 1901, along with Vlaminck etc, attended a Van Gogh exhibition which inspired a radical change in their art. Their paintings became more brightly coloured and abstract, and they became known as the Fauves". - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you reference that? That would be bogus - totally bogus...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Take your pick. Here's a nice summary from Vincent Van Gogh: The Drawings: "Introduced to Van Gogh's work at close hand through the suite of drawings Russell owned and those Vollard had in stock, Matisse took in the great 1901 Van Gogh retrospective at Galerie Berheim-Jeune in the company of Andre Derain and Maurice Vlaminck; having absorbed its impact by the time of the memorial tribute held at the Independants in 1905, they emerged as the Dutch artist's heirs under the banner of "Fauves" (wild beasts)." By the way calling things "totally bogus", "obvious" isn't helpful. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Matisse had already changed his paintings by 1901 and was already what could be called a Fauve or by the very least a Post-Impressionist he was by 1901 a mentor figure to Derain and Braque who were 10 years younger. Yes, the Van Gogh show of 1901 was enormously important and Vlaminck especially was influenced...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. But lets leave it at that, maybe two sentences for Vincent's bio. I think if we underplay it like this, casually stated, this instance of his reach will have better impact. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. It's more concise and makes Van Gogh integral rather than tangential. This is a biography about Van Gogh after all. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. Left the opening sentence, then Influenced by van Gogh, he abandoned his earth-coloured palette for bright colours, which is quite the statement. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Is anyone else concerned by the amount of images in the article body (107 by my count, surely some kind of arts biography record)? The galleries have bloated the article size and reduced the scroll bar to a slither. This is off-putting to readers. "I have to go through all this?!" If they want to look at more images from a particular series, they can go to the article on that series. That's why they're there, to avoid this kind of overload of text and imagery in the first place. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    • We discussed this above. I slightly share your concern; I love these images and they are all individually important but I am a great believer in "less is more" and you may have a point that 97 paintings are too many for the article. Even a 10% reduction would aid navigation and improve the article, which is in every other respect ready for promotion, in my opinion. --John (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've begun by cutting eight. I agree with John, and this is a pity. I think that any further removls should be from series, or of images where other included paintings already convey the points made in the text. Ie NOT from development, early career, portraits or self portraits, as there are wide stylistic ranges there. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thinking this through further, imo the issues isntn the absolute number, but density in a few specific areas. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A few days ago I tried this experiment in my sandbox. The galleries are downsized and the "perrow" parameter removed; on my screen it looks fine - in fact it looks quite nice. This was done after going to a computer store and looking at a lot of different devices, but the problem is that I can't seem to convince anyone, partially, I suspect because I don't know how it looks like on someone else's screen. Might look like crap. But, equally, as formatted now the galleries are not looking great on my screen (that's an understatement). I think the best thing to do is to take screen prints and send them out via email. We all want to get this right but the technology isn't helping. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I can try downsizing and removing the perrow...Modernist (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've taken screenshots. If you reply, I'll send them to you. Of course I can't guarantee that's what everyone else is seeing, but the Macbook's screen seems fairly good. I found that taking out the perrow allows different browsers to position the images along the entire width of the screen. It's not always perfect, but I don't think we'll get perfection. Victoria (tk) 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • At 160 a desktop/laptop will display 5 images across; depending on its size a tablet will display 5 across, or 4/1, or 3/2. Phones seems to display each image singly, centered. They look great but it's a lot of scrolling. At 160 we can have galleries of five and will only need to cut out a few. At least I think that might work. Victoria (tk) 16:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Nominator request[edit]

A summary of progress, given that this has become [happily, given the resulting improvements] become so large. IMO: all non trivial points met. In the last 2 weeks there has been top to bottom c.e [John], the addition of a sect on why he is a house hold name,[ahem] context for the letters as the primary source [Modernist, Vic], an overhaul on the nr and placement of images, [Modernist] logical corrections,[Vic, Modernist, John] and tightening of matters of scope.[John] All this is difficult to see and navigate here, I ask that valued reviewers strike resolved issues, so that we can properly gauge. Thanks so far all. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support -- I think the nominators have done a wonderful job with this and it has certainly improved over time. I conducted some fixes myself, all of which were minor, and further improvements have been made since, by others. It is informative, nicely written, excellently researched and thoroughly engaging. I'd perhaps not add any more images as I think there are more than enough; in fact, I might say that it has one too many, but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Great work by all and a shining example of what can happen when everyone pulls together. CassiantoTalk 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cassianto, for reading and for the support. Victoria (tk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • yes thanks Cassianto for both, and the talk page suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh[edit]

I read the lead a few days ago and found some sentences to be too long, with too many concepts, sometimes unrelated. I've had a go at copy editing it to try and make it easier to read. I adjusted the positioning of some commas where these appeared to be slightly out of place.

At the end of the lead, it now says, "His reputation began to grow in the early 20th century as elements of his painting style came to be incorporated by the Fauves and German Expressionists." I couldn't see anything about the German Expressionists in the main body of the article, unless I've missed it. Should this be addressed?

The painting images make me feel like I'm in in art gallery, looking at his pictures and reading about him. Not many articles do that. Sandbh (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reading and commenting. I have added a sentence to the body about German Expressionism, well spotted. --John (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sandbh, I had added and then deleted from that section (see the deletion here) specifically about Die Brücke artists because the section was getting long, but I think I trimmed out too much. I'll put it back, but perhaps in a more succinct manner. That's a good catch, btw. Thanks for noting it. Very nice comment about the images. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an unusual cantata among the many of Johann Sebastian Bach. We look at it because it was (most likely) performed 300 years ago, when Bach's productivity in Weimar dwindled. Later, when he composed cantatas again with enthusiasm in Leipzig, he wrote new ones instead of using this one again. The thought expressed in the title seems strange to our thinking: "Come, you sweet hour of death". Please read why scholars and performers love the work. - The GA review was performed by Ceoil, about a year ago, who also helped with the prose. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just the lede for now, due to limited time and spotty internet:

  • "Bach had taken up regular cantata composition two years before when he was promoted to concertmaster" two years before what?
should it say "before this piece was probably first performed"? - (Probable) date given the previous sentence. --GA
Something along those lines, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The date is now given, the details about the "probably" would be hard at that point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Shloss I would add a suitable translation (palace, most likely) in parentheses.
We have an article Schloss, linked for those who don't know. Weimar - unfortunately - is a complex thing, started as castle, palace added. --GA
  • Should Knoll be linked in the lede?
yes, done --GA
  • "appears already in the first movement" I'm not sure what is meant by "already"
The closing (or concluding) chorale is the last movement. It's an unusual feature of this cantata and a few others to introduce the melody already in the first movement. --GA
OK, but there's a prose issue. I would replace "already" with "unusually for Bach" or "unusually for a Bach chorale" or whatever it is unusual for, with commas before and after.
What do you think of improving the wording first in the body, then decide up to which detail it needs to be said in the lead? - Help to better English is always welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "continuo" link?
In the lead and infobox (of these similar articles), we link the group Baroque instruments (... ensemble), later in Scoring the individual terms. --GA
  • "While the libretto was published in a collection in 1715, Bach possibly led the first performance only a year later on 27 September 1716, due to a period of public mourning." I'm having trouble grasping this. Was it usual for a longer period between publication and performance?
No, usually it was composed immediately. Written 1715 would normally have been composed 1715. But now, as there was mourning in 1715 - no cantata music - it was either composed in 1715 but performed in 1716, or composed and performed in 1716. --GA
Then you need to make that more clear because it's not clear what "due to ... mourning" relates to. W
Public mourning after the death of a young man from the duke's family, - seems a lot of detail for the lead, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the prose does not convey what you think it does. You need to rephrase it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I added more detail in the body, and some of it in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Bach revived the cantata in Leipzig, but not during his cantata cycles when he composed three new works for the 16th Sunday after Trinity." I'm not sure what is meant by "but not during his cantata cycles"
He composed three cycles of cantatas, one a week, in 1723 / 1724 / 1725. We have articles for the second and third so far, but not the first. Would a link to Bach cantata#Leipzig help? --GA
No, again it is prose. perhaps for the text I've quoted above, "but did not include it in his cantata cycles" or similar, and continuing "composing instead three new works ..."
But the new compositions were rather the expected thing, - unusual that he revived earlier works, for example never composed a new cantata for Easter Sunday in all three cycles. I hesitate, therefore, to say "did not include". Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "He also assigning it to the occasion of Purification," should be past tense, "assigned", though I'm not sure that is the proper term. "designated", maybe?
yes, better --GA
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, helpful already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


I might begin with Bach’s year of birth, so the reader knows when his teen years were.
Will do. I will look in detail tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
done now ---GA
  • He was appointed concertmaster” I might say “he was promoted to concertmaster” to tie in with the headnote. I would begin the following sentence “In that position” to avoid the repeat of “concertmaster”
following sentence done, - I was criticized before for using exactly the same wording oin body and lead, - a fine difficult for me to judge ---GA
  • I would add a comma after “Specifically”.
done ---GA
  • "the regular chance to compose and perform a new work” possibly “the chance to regularly compose and perform a new work”
yes, better ---GA
  • ”program” consider “programme” since you are using day month year, this spelling is more common in the UK, which uses day month year.
I usually stick to British, but "programme" seems so needlessly long, and "bar" ambiguous, therefore I am not consistent for those two, using program and measure ;) - In this case, perhaps we can find a better word altogether. ---GA
  • ”Cantatas in 1716” I might say “of” rather than “in”.
taken ---GA
  • In the second sentence, I might add a “have” before “survived” and “contemporary” before “interest” (assuming I have grasped what is meant correctly)
"have" taken, don't understand the other ---GA
  • "Bach turned again to prolific writing “I might rephrase “From the start of the liturgical year on the first Sunday in Advent, Bach wrote prolifically”
taken ---GA
  • Why is the table of 1716 works necessary in this article?
It is not necessary, but similar to the list of the early cantatas in BWV 4 and the 1715 list in BWV 165, - for context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "expressed in words of desire to die soon” possibly “expressed as a longing for death” or similar.
taken, but let's think about it, - how to include the "soon" ---GA
  • You link and introduce Franck twice in close succession.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I got the new ones now. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The prescribed readings for that Sunday were from the Epistle to the Ephesians" If they remain so, would say "are" rather than "were"
Reading schedule probably changed, --GA
  • "was first performed on 6 October 1715" This is clearly the 16th Sunday after Trinity, from the other dates provided. I would identify it as such, and use less text to identify the other dates (for example the November date could be identified simply as "the 21st Sunday"
not sure I understand what you mean, - the first line of the lead established the 16th Sunday after Trinity, and the readings, - it would not have been performed any other occasion than a 16th Sunday after Trinity, - until much later when he also took it for Purification (February) --GA
  • I would find a way to combine the first two paragraphs of "Performances". I think that argument can be consolidated into one paragraph, and I think the paragraph break weakens the structure.
tried --GA
Sorry, am traveling and doing bits and pieces. Will finish soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
no problem, thank for your feedback --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "he feast of the Purification of Mary on 2 February" year?
every year --GA
  • The German text beginning "Auf den ..." should likely be italicized.
In musical articles, we most often don't italicize quotes, - compare the incipits of the movements --GA
  • Why are the names of the movements italicized in the table but not in the following text?
because they are names of movements in the table, but just quoted text in the following text, - sometimes longer text than the movement name (= first line), to make more sense --GA
  • "In a later performance in Leipzig, a soprano sang the stanza with the organ" What year? If Bach supervised the performance it is important, but if he didn't, it may not be.
Unfortunately we don't know, see higher up: "some time between 1737 and 1746". --GA
  • In Movement 2, I would give the reader the English after each quote in German.
The first is a quote from the bible, you get the translation clicking on "Phillians ...). Do you think it should be repeated? --GA
  • " (My longing is, to embrace my Savior),[1] is the first movement with the strings, expressing a deep sense of longing" Yes, likely so, but the repetition does not give the reader more information than he already has (and "longing" awaits him twice more before he exits this short paragraph). Suggest a synonym here.
This was done by a helper, did you notice?
  • It might be helpful to add the date of the 16th Sunday after Trinity in 2000 in Later Performances where it is mentioned (in parentheses).
done --GA
That's it. I'll make a second run through once this is done but I expect to support. I've made some edits, feel free to revert any not liked.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for thorough reading, it's already improved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Support Well done. I've made some final tweaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Oppose pending a usable Recordings section. Meaning should not be conveyed solely by colour per accessibility requirements (someone who can't see the red would be very lost, and even someone who can would not easily understand the explanation). Sortable fields should not contain multiple values since only one can be used to sort. Happy to strike oppose and provide more comments once this is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

After midnight where I live, so only briefly: the section looks like that of other featured articles on the subject, - what is different here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Not having tracked down which articles you refer to, I would say if they really are the same, those others should be altered also. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I altered this one, - no more red. Will look at a different header line tomorrow. Compare BWV 4, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that one needs editing also. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Please look again, at both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Colour now fine, just the sorting issue left to address. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I made column "soloists" not sortable. I think people might want to sort by conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You could then make conductor its own column. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I could, but some have long names. With typically four soloists, it's much better for the layout to combine the conductor with the groups of singers and instrumentalists, also they form a kind of unity. We could make a footnote saying that it's sortable by conductor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If width is the concern, perhaps combine the choir and orchestra descriptions, or even put them under title? I'm not sure I agree that people would like to sort by conductor but not by ensemble. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say they wouldn't want to sort by ensemble, but for width reasons, I don't want a column for each, it would mean one for chorus and one for orchestra, no? With the added difficulty that some have both in one. - Actually I'd think to have the conductors in a separate column would give them a prominence I would not like to grant them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
All right, so if conductors shouldn't be prominent and shouldn't be split, don't make that column sortable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Short and sweet article. Just a few comments.

  • "Herzlich tut mich verlangen" --> is this right with quotation marks, or should it be, like the names of cantates, in italics? Same question for choral tune "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden"
songs (including hymns) and poems in quotation marks --GA
  • "For details on Bach's promotion, see Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 § Background." --> Would it not be better to include the relevant info here, in a footnote?
I feel that the relevant info is here: that from then on he had the right to compose and perform a cantata per month. It's just a (rather long) paragraph for those who want to know more. --GA
  • "a complete annual cycle" --> might benefit from a little explanation
Would another link to Church cantata (Bach) help? (in the lead and in the infobox) --GA
Yes --E
done, and liturgical year added, with another link ---GA
  • "on Wolff and the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr" --> makes Wolff look like he is not a Bach scholar
You are right. Wolff was introduced before, Dürr not. I tried to drop the Bach scholar there. --GA
  • In the Readings and Text section, I find this repetitive: "The text for this cantata, as for many others of Bach's Weimar period, was written by the court poet Salomon Franck, and published in his collection Evangelisches Andachts-Opffer in 1715", repeating what was said in the earlier section.
Good catch, that happens when paragraphs are added at the beginning ;) --GA
  • "one of the most richly inspired of all Bach's Weimar cantatas" --> any indication how many all is would be helpful
by math it would be 4 times 12 (1 a month), however - as we know from above - there was mourning, and Bach stopped altogether the last year, so only 15 in 1714+15, and 6 in 1716, - I could write 21, or "around 20" but wouldn't that be original research? --GA
I assume there is a list somewhere with Weimar cantates. --E
If it was I'd link ;) - all we have so far is this on Bach cantata, ---GA
It will be a tricky question to answer, the number performed in Weimar may be different from that certainly composed there, and for some cantatas we just don't know, including the two which may have been composed earlier elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "according to a recent study" --> would be helpful to know the reason why. And ideally the reference is the primary source
The reason are stylistic considerations in that "recent study" by Rampe and Sackmann, which are summarized by Jones as "technical novelties". --GA
  • "In his first year as Thomaskantor" --> a bit more clarity would be good: which year?
ok, I keep forgetting that :) --GA
  • "also composed at Weimar" --> that is 2 times also in short succession
tried a change --GA
  • "He later used the juxtaposition of a chorale cantus firmus against vocal music later " --> repetition of later
yes --GA
  • " the version performed in Weimar in 1714" --> I think 1716
You are so right. (At least this time I didn't write 2014.) --GA
  • The movements table: a legend is more helpful, explaining A, Fl etc. I know it's in the text but readers should not have to hunt down the text. Table should work standalone. Therefore I think the continuo should be added.
will think about it (but we have a few FAs on Bach cantatas already, BWV 4, BWV 165 ...) --GA
  • "and the cantata Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis, BWV 21, among others" --> perhaps that "among others" is not needed, since we already have "one of several"
yes --GA
  • "the Monteverdi Choir" --> the Monteverdi Chor perhaps? And wikilink?
Monteverdi-Chor is not Monteverdi Choir, Bach Cantata Pilgrimage is a redirect to the latter --GA
  • "The table entries are excerpted from the selection on the Bach-Cantatas website" --> I don't think the source is that important. Better to introduce what the table is about.
other reviewers (in earlier FAC) asked for it --GA
  • The BWV note needs a source. Schneider?
It's in 100 articles, but nobody asked for a source. It's there to explain the abbreviation, - and the short explanation helps people perhaps not to have to click (to an immensely long article) --GA
I've added a source. I think everything should have a source. --E
  • I haven't been able to deduce the rationale for the grouping of the sources. Some general ones seem online.
Would you know a better word for general, to summarize basics such as score and collections of sources? --GA
I see. Difficult. Let me think about it. --E
  • The (in German) doesn't seem right for the Breitkopf and Carus online sources
good catch again --GA
  • the isbn numbers are a mix of 10 and 13
I fixed one, but where would I find a 13 number for the 1971 printed book? --GA
I have done it using an isbn converter. --E
For future reference, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • the second OUP is linked. Not sure if only the first should be, or all, but second doesn't look right
swapped --GA
  • Reading through the sources to see if anything else might be included, I came across this about movement 4, for your consideration: "the onomatopoeic effect of the striking of the hour", on
will look --GA
  • I noticed how FA Tosca has audio excerpts. I do believe that if any audio is available it should be included.
will check --GA

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking closely and asking good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
One more thing to think about: I like the infobox image. Is there anything to add about the manuscript and Bach's annotations? Edwininlondon (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Asking Mathsci who made it available, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, two more answered above, ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw[edit]

Overall a nicely written and understandable, well-researched article. A few minor nitpicks:

  • I'd like to see a few more terms wikilinked for the benefit of the non-aficionado: concertmaster, duchy of Weimar ( I think Saxe-Weimar?), Schlosskirche or palace church (looks like Castle chapel is the closest for a piped link), aria, recitative, recorders (Recorder (musical instrument) for sure, as the non-musician may not have endured their use in elementary music class...), secco (glossary link exists: secco), Tadashi Isoyama.
We need to split it:
  • concertmaster - no because that is a different fundtion today
  • duchy of Weimar Saxe-Weimar - done
  • Schlosskirche or palace church (looks like Castle chapel is the closest for a piped link) - well I don't believe we need to send people away for that article
  • aria - done
  • recitative - done
  • recorders (Recorder (musical instrument) - yes already, but not in the lead, where no instrument is linked but Baroque instruments
  • secco (glossary link exists: secco) - no good link, the secco section in recitative is better
  • Tadashi Isoyama - no, will stay red link. --GA
  • Might want to rephrase "period of public mourning of six months in the duchy of Weimar from August 1715." in the lead, perhaps something like "period of public mourning for the Duke's brother that fell during Trinity..." or something like that, still short, but giving context...
The sad story has not really to do with the music, - I thought too much for the lead --GA
  • Overall, I think a copyedit for phrasing and smoothing out would be helpful, nothing really jumps out, just overall some spots where a "the" or another word or two would improve the flow.
will ask Corinne --GA

Montanabw(talk) 07:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: My concerns have been addressed or answered appropriately. Glad to support. Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:BWV161-P124-staatsbibliothek-berlin.jpeg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Appropriate parameters have been added to the existing PD-Art template, based on the 1887 publication date given in the article.—Odysseus1479 08:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

  • "the 16th Sunday after Trinity": Very few Main Page readers will know when Trinity is. Perhaps "24th Sunday after Easter", instead of or in addition to Trinity.
No, sorry, it's a fixed term, those who don't know can click on the link. We can't explain in 60 or so cantatas the fifty days from Easter to Pentecost. --GA
  • "In Bach's time the story pointed at the resurrection of the dead, expressed in words of desire to die soon.": I'm not sure what that means.
I am afraid we all don't. It was a very Baroque approach. (Baroque#Etymology originally means something strange and crooked.) --GA
Thank you very much, for diligent reading and especially for the prose help! - with a ping to Montanabw ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure Gerda, any time. Btw, I agree with all of Montana's points, and I fixed some of those as I went, such as adding a link for secco. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav monitor Drava[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) and 23 editor

This article is about a heavily armoured river monitor that saw extensive service with the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla during World War I and then briefly saw action with the Yugoslav Danube Flotilla during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in World War II. It is the last of four articles about Yugoslav river monitors to come to FAC. During the invasion she was persistently attacked by Stuka divebombers who scored several ineffective hits on her until one bomb went down her funnel into her engine room, killing most of her crew and sinking her. It successfully underwent Milhist A-Class review in August last year, and since then has been expanded and improved with a German language source. While we believe it meets the FA criteria, we are keen to get constructive suggestions about possible improvements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:River_monitor_Inn.png: the given US tag requires that the work "was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice" - was that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Perhaps a link to the "assault on Belgrade" in which she participated.
  • The SMS Szamos that is mentioned doesn't have an article.
  • 30th Infantry Division Osiječka also doesn't have an article.
  • It is well written, and understandable While it shows much promise I believe it should not receive FA status until the above listed issues are dealt with. Iazyges (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've added a couple of see also links to the WWI section to address your first point. A few redlinks are fine in a FA, I've had plenty of articles pass FA with redlinks, it is part of a developing encyclopedia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the first sentence in the article body is a bit hard to understand. "The name ship of the Enns-class river monitors was built". Perhaps make it clearer by saying "SMS Enns was constructed as the name ship of the Enns-class river monitors" or some such. Perhaps move the name ship fact down to "Despite the requirement that Enns and SMS Inn be constructed as sister ships" and add "with SMS Enns as the name ship".
  • Any source for footnote b?
  • I assume the sister ship is shown in the infobox because none could be found for the actual ship? Seems a bit strange that another ship would be shown there, however much alike. It would be like showing the brother of an actor because no pictures of the subject could be found...
  • "Namesake: Enns River" Why is this significant info not mentioned in the article body?
  • "The month after Enns was commissioned into the Danube Flotilla" Is that October 1914?
  • There is some double linking.
  • "Enns continued in action against Serbia and her allies at Belgrade until late December, when her base was withdrawn to Petrovaradin for the winter." What does the last "her" refer to here? A bit hard when you refer to both the ship and the country as "her" in the same sentence.
  • Important terms like "Ottomans" and "Central Powers" are not linked.
  • "With the dissolution of Austria-Hungary" Add date for context?
  • "but two of the successful anti-aircraft gunners were among the survivors" Perhaps name them, if possible?
  • "During the occupation of Yugoslavia." When and by who? Link?
    • Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I have addressed your comments, here are my edits, which I believe cover all your points except the issue of a citation for Note b. I believe that this isn't likely to be challenged, as it is the international standard for measuring the length of the barrel of a gun. The sister ship is in the infobox because I have been unable to find a free photograph of Enns. It is fairly common to do this with essentially identical ships, which is the case with this one, despite the fact they were made at different shipyards. I've had FAs promoted with a similar arrangement before. See Yugoslav submarine Nebojša for an example. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all my concerns have been nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward, a 2012 visual novel developed by Chunsoft. It features an incredibly convoluted story (as you'll soon read) with more WTF moments than I can remember. It was well received by critics, and was even nominated by GameSpot for Game of the Year. This was the first article I ever put serious time into editing, and together with IDV and ThomasO1989, we've brought this article up to what we believe are FAC standards. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Czar[edit]

  • The Reception section is exceptionally short right now and overquoted. Needs more paraphrasing and elaboration on major and minor themes from the reviewers. czar 22:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The thing about the reviews for this game is that they really don't go into a whole lot of detail about the smaller intricacies in the game, or what they liked and disliked. Seriously, it's weird, but I think it's because since it's a visual novel, most critics didn't want to spoil any plot related stuff. In fact, most reviews spend the majority of their time explaining how visual novels work and how the Nonary Game works. The EGM review for example states that "I know I’ve been decidedly obscure about explaining what you’ll find in Virtue’s Last Reward—but I cannot stress enough that the less you know about this game going in, the more enjoyment you’ll have" while the Eurogamer reviews states "To reveal how it does so would be to ruin the fun and take away the dizzying, off-kilter moments that make Virtue's Last Reward such a frequent joy." However, rereading through the reviews, I did find how some reviews felt the character animations were wonky, and I could add to each paragraph a little bit. I'll also try to condense the quotes into paraphrased sentences. Although, I would like to keep the quote "among the best performances I've ever heard in any game, period." Not often you see a quote like that for a game. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: I've expanded the paragraphs in the review section. I think you'll like the changes. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dissident93[edit]

Comments by Dissident93 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I've never did an article review before (I'd rather just edit it myself and save the time), but here is what I'd change, based on a policy or guideline. Here is what I found based on a solid skim through the article:

Lead Developed for the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita, it was released on February 12, 2012 in Japan, and in North America and Europe later that year.

  • Dates should always be generalized in the lead, per WP:VG/DATE.
Done, though I'm a bit worried about having the word "in" used three times in the same sentence. I'll try to fix that soon

Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was originally released as a stand-alone title, but its unexpected success in North America prompted game director Kotaro Uchikoshi to continue the series with a sequel.

  • Unexpected according to whom? And did it not have success in Europe, or was success expected there from the start?
According to Uchikoshi, it's a rarity for a game developed in Japan to be more commercially successful in the West than in Japan. I could add "but its unexpected commercial success in North America" if you want. As for the second part, Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was not released in Europe. I feel that would be unnecessary to mention in the lead
Oops, I must have been looking at another article's infobox at the time or something. In that case, adding commercial works. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

However, the game was not commercially successful in Japan, which led to the development of its sequel to be put on indefinite hiatus.

  • Indefinite hiatus, but the sequel was released last month? This needs to be re-worded or sentences merged to seem less like they were written in two different eras (which seems to be the case).


  • Seems to be fine, I would have to nitpick to say anything needs to be fixed.

Plot Each character description is taken from the Aksys Games website.

  • Some meta-comment like this doesn't need to be stated in plain sight. Either turn this into a footnote, or remove it all together and find a better place for the source. Rest of the section seems fine.

Development Uchikoshi also considered including several scientific and philosophical theories/experiments that eventually were left out including: Dissipative system, Monty Hall problem, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Toxoplasmosis, Folie à deux, Capgras delusion, Fregoli delusion, Sally–Anne test, and Project MKUltra.

  • Run-on sentence that lists random (to a casual reader) linked concepts. Not saying this needs to be removed, but it could be better written or trimmed a bit.
I agree, but I'm not quite sure how to fix this. I'll get back to you on this.

Promotion and release

  • Section itself is fine, but normally we just go with "Release" as the subsection title on game articles. Probably just a nitpick though, but it's something I'd personally edit.
Agreed, so I changed it to just release

Reception The aggregate-review website Metacritic rated the Nintendo 3DS version 88/100,[48] and the PlayStation Vita version 84/100.

  • This means nothing to a casual reader. It should be written simply in prose as "The game received generally favorable reviews, according to review aggregator Metacritic."

It was also tied for the seventh highest rated PlayStation Vita game of 2012 on Metacritic.

  • This is not normally written in game articles, even ones who are listed as the best game of the year. I'd remove it, but this is another personal opinion, not a guideline or policy.
I just removed those sentences entirely. There not that important


  • Nothing I'd change here, section is fine from what I see.


  • One final thing I'll say is that I thought Visual Novel Database external links were considered user generated, and therefore should be removed per WP:ELNO #12? Outside of that, the article follows WP:VG/GL and WP:MOS guidelines and policies, and once the aforementioned issues above are addressed, I'll support the article becoming featured. But again, first time I've ever done this, so I'm not sure if I did anything wrong for a nomination. You might want to re-check your Dota 2 comments to see if I properly addressed them too, if you haven't already.
I know that movie articles tend to have IMDb in their external links, but since the Visual Novel Database isn't well established, I have no problem removing it. As for the review, don't worry, you did exactly what you needed to do. I'll ping you once I've finished the run on sentence in the development section. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I've fixed all your comments. You might also want to check over the lead again, since I shortened it to three paragraphs, and reworded a bunch of the sentences. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The only thing that looks off is the very first paragraph, which looks a bit small in comparison with the other two. But of course, we should never add bloat just to increase a section, and it gets all of the article's major points across, so it's fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by PresN[edit]

Review by PresN
  • Reserving this spot; will start the review tomorrow. --PresN 01:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "These are presented from a first-person perspective,[9] with the player being able to move between" -> "with the player able to move between"
  • "if the player sets the puzzle's difficulty level from "hard" to "easy"" - you can't set "from", so either "changes the puzzle's difficulty level from 'hard' to 'easy'" or just "sets the level puzzle's difficulty level to 'easy'".
  • "For example, if a particular plotline cannot progress because a required password is unknown, the player must jump to other plotlines and find it before returning to the original one." - that "it" is problematic. I think the sentence would be clearer as "For example, if a particular plotline cannot progress because a required password is unknown, the player must jump to another plotline and learn the password there before returning to the original one."
Thanks - it's easy to overlook vague or confusing wording since I already know what's meant, so this is really helpful.--IDVtalk 16:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The player is thus required to jump often" - the "thus" is unnecessary.
  • "Although dependent on a given timeline, the characters either discover" - "Depending on the given timeline, the characters also either discover"; additionally, it's a bit vague on if you find these in the first puzzle room or later in the game - you don't say, but the connection with the prior sentence implies it to me.
Yeah, it's after the first room. I think it's better explained now.--IDVtalk 16:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The remaining participants proceed to the next set of puzzle rooms." - well, now I'm lost. I thought you were covering a big chunk of the game in the prior paragraph; was all that just in the first set of rooms? Or by "set" do you mean "series", as in several rooms that the player beats one after another?
@PresN: Yeah, the exploration of the characters' backstories take place throughout a large portion of the game. I think it is only confusing due to how the bit about Dio being restrained was part of the previous paragraph; I moved it to the next one, to clarify that everyone but Dio and Akane moves on after Sigma has defused the bombs. Let me know if you think this works.--IDVtalk 16:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "they uncover a holographic message of the old woman, the same woman Tenmyouji has been looking for, Akane Kurashiki" - the series of commas makes the center one an aside, which flows better if the name is the center instead of a whole phrase. "they uncover a holographic message of the old woman, Akane Kurashiki, who was the woman Tenmyouji was looking for."
  • "Dio sought to prevent this goal." - A "goal" isn't an action that can be prevented; try "Dio sought to stop the project."
  • Wow. That plot is... a lot more complicated than I expected for an escape-the-room visual novel.
Oh believe me, it gets MUCH more complicated if you play the game.
  • "and thus, moved production of the game to the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita" - "and changed production of the game to the 3DS and Vita"
  • "These scrapped ideas included Monty Hall problem [...] and Capgras delusion" - "These scrapped ideas included the Monty Hall problem [...] and the Capgras delusion"
  • "It was important to know whether information regarding each character had been revealed yet to the player" - "revealed yet to the player in that timeline"
  • Try mixing up the "Bob of Website" formula- "Website's Bob", "Writing for Website, Bob", etc.
  • The whole reception section feels like a list of quotes clumped by theme, and has the weakest writing of the whole article as a result; it could use some more variation and linking between statements. "Martin Robinson of Eurogamer appreciated that the cast was believable and that each character was powered by real emotion. Boosinger commented that the characters were not well written, and that there was little reason to care about them until their backstories were revealed." - these two sentences contradict each other, but are just laid side-by-side without so much as a "however". Additionally, for three paragraphs straight every single sentence is "X of Y said blah." "A of Z said blah". Mixing up the sentence structure would also help a lot in keeping this section from getting laborious to read- "The voice acting was praised by X of Y, who said "blah", as well as by Z's A, who complimented the bluh." See User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections for a lengthier discussion about this topic.
  • "including: [X, Y, Z,] as well as Best Story and Best Graphic Adventure from RPGFan" - "as well as" doesn't work in a colon-separated list, and is kind fo awkward in general. Just "and" will do.
  • "The game also received nominations for: [X] and Game of the Year from [A, B, and C]." - and on the flip side, because of the "and" this isn't a straight list of nominations, so the colon doesn't work. Removing the colon fixes this.
  • "However, less than a year later" - Having "however" at the start interrupts the flow; reverse to "Less than a year later, however,"
  • "resembled the fonts from Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors's cover art, which led some to believe that the countdown timer would end with an announcement regarding the third Zero Escape game." - feels a little "written in the moment, 4 years ago"; better as "resembled the fonts from Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors's cover art, which led to speculation it was counting down to an announcement regarding a third Zero Escape game"

The reception section's choppiness is the largest problem I saw with the article. --PresN 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review PresN! I will admit, I've never been the best at reception sections, but I'll see what I can do. As of the moment it is rather choppy. Unfortunately, this just so happens to be the week I move into my college dorm, so I might be a bit preoccupied for the next few days or so. I cleared up some of the smaller issues, but the story and reception issues might take a little longer to fix. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@PresN: Alright, together with IDV, I think we've managed to strengthen the reception section. We've added variations to the sentence lengths, changed the monotonous "Joe Nobody of IGN" stuff, and removed some unnecessary details. Hopefully this is now up to your liking
Much better, now Support. --PresN 17:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (note: pings don't work if you don't sign in the same edit, so I never got this one)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Just pinging you to see if you're still interested in doing the review. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, this is a solid article. I have a few comments, as follows:

  • The story section is... uh, involved. Not entirely sure if there's any way to simplify it overall, although Depending on whether or not Dio murdered Akane in a given timeline, either Sigma's clone or Akane occupies K's armor, a quantum superposition just doesn't make sense to me. Just drop the quantum mechanics bit, it's a comma splice and doesn't illuminate anything.
  • I don't think there's a strong WP:NFCC case to be made for the inclusion of File:VLR cast.png. The commentary in the article is basically "they were designed to be diverse", which is great, but doesn't justify the image alone. There's nothing in the reception section or very precise details in development to buttress its inclusion either. My recommendation is to remove it.
  • References:
    • What makes Technology Tell,, and high-quality reliable sources?
    • Ref 20 and elsewhere gives The Escapist's publisher as Gamer Network, inconsistently with other mentions.
    • I'm a bit confused by the use and necessity of the separate notes section; what are the Questions being cited with no context? Do we really need an explanation of Famitsu's score when it's not relevant to the article body? (Indeed, the Famitsu review isn't referenced in prose.) The bit on Chunsoft's merger just comes off as trivia.
    • Don't bother citing the game for the plot section if all you're going to cite is "the game".

Chicago Pile-1[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that you can pile rocks in a heap, and strange and wonderful things happen. Based on the science of neutrons, whose existence was demonstrated just ten years before, and which cannot be seen, only inferred. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN29-30: Atomic Heritage would be better described as the publisher rather than the author
  • FN75: university is the publisher, shouldn't be italicized. Also, this citation includes "The" in the name but FN105 does not - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Both corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


  • "The idea of chemical chain reactions was first put forth in 1913". "put forth" does not sound right to me. How about "suggested"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "for a situation in which two molecules react to form not just the molecules of the final reaction products, but also some unstable molecules which can further react with the parent molecules to cause more molecules to react." I see this is referenced to a Nobel Prize speech, but it still seems to me obscure, with "molecule" repeated 5 times in one sentence, and it is not obvious what "parent molecule" refers to. The OED definition at [17] "a chemical or nuclear reaction forming intermediate products which react with the original substance and are repeatedly renewed" is far clearer.
    Re-worded to "a situation in which two molecules react to form not just the the final reaction products, but also some unstable molecules which can further react with the parent molecules to cause more to react" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "neutron moderator" It might be helpful to explain that the moderator is needed (if I have understood correctly) to slow the neutrons down so that they are more likely to be absorbed by the uranium instead of escaping.
    Correct. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am showing my ignorance but I find the timing fascinating. So they drew up the letter to Roosevelt just before war broke out on 1 September, and he approved the proposal shortly afterwards. Is it known when they first saw the project as a reply to the treat of a German nuclear bomb?
    Not for certain, but some time between January and July 1939. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " lending his fame to the proposal" "prestige" might be a better word.
    "prestige" is a great word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Its first meeting on 21 October 1939, was attended by Szilard, Teller and Wigner, who persuaded the Army and Navy" Does "who" mean Wigner or the meeting?
    Mostly Wigner, but changed to "The scientists persuaded the Army and Navy" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "In a nuclear reactor, criticality is achieved when the rate of neutron production is equal to the rate of neutron losses, including both neutron absorption and neutron leakage. Thus, in the simplest case of a bare, homogeneous, steady state nuclear reactor, the neutron leakage and neutron absorption must be equal to neutron production in order to reach criticality." I do not understand this. You apppear to say here that production must equal losses, in the next paragraph that production must exceed losses (which seems logical).
    You don't want a runaway chain reaction, which would be an atomic bomb. So production needs to equal loss. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine article. However, I think "parent molecules" is confusing and "original substance" clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    Changed accordingly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  • shake, "clothesline", etc.: I'm not taking a position on the italics or quote marks, here and elsewhere.
  • "There was a fear of a catastrophic nuclear meltdown blanketing one of the United States' major urban areas in radioactive fission products": I'm not sure, but this sentence seems to fit more with the following paragraph than the one it's in.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


  • "In order for a chain reaction to occur, additional neutrons had to be emitted from fissioning uranium atoms": I think the point here is that unless more neutrons are emitted than absorbed from each reaction, the chain reaction can't get started because at anything less than 100% efficiency the reactions quickly die away to nothing. I know this is an article about the pile, not the theory, but I think a note at least is necessary to clarify this for readers unfamiliar with the idea. This would also clarify the phrase "neutron multiplication" later in the paragraph.
    Rephrased to "In order for a chain reaction to occur, fissioning uranium atoms had to emit additional neutrons to keep the reaction going" Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " As a back-up plan, he also considered where to find a few tons of heavy water; deuterium would not absorb neutrons like ordinary hydrogen, and was a better moderator than carbon, but heavy water was difficult and expensive to produce": suggest " As a back-up plan, he considered heavy water (deuterium), which would not absorb neutrons like ordinary hydrogen, and was a better moderator than carbon, but heavy water was difficult and expensive to produce, and several tons of it would be needed" to eliminate "where to find", which I think is implied.
    Changed to: "As a back-up plan, he considered heavy water. This contained deuterium, which would not absorb neutrons like ordinary hydrogen, and was a better neutron moderator than carbon; but heavy water was expensive to produce and difficult to produce, and several tons of it might be needed." Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Fermi determined that a fissioning uranium nucleus produced 1.73 neutrons on average": I see below that the modern estimate for this is 2.4. It might be worth giving that in a note, or else changing the language to make it clear that this was Fermi's estimate with state-of-the-art data as of 1939, not Fermi establishing the currently accepted number.
  • I'm not familiar with whatever the MoS requirements are for unit conversion, so perhaps you're just constrained by the MoS, but it's a bit ugly to give tonnes, long tons, and short tons, for a single quantity, especially when it occurs twice in a sentence. I see at least one case where there are no unit conversions (towards the end of "origins"). Can't we just give one unit with a link?
    It's just the default. Changed to use only one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the neutron leakage and neutron absorption must be equal, on average": I don't follow this -- surely the requirement is that at least one emitted neutron is absorbed is the criticality requirement? Since the average number of emitted neutrons is 2.4, if 1.1 are absorbed and 1.3 leak, you have criticality, but leakage doesn't equal absorption. And isn't this the same as the discussion of k below? I think I must be missing something here.
    If it is less, then the reaction will die down. If it is more, then it will melt down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think "migration area" and "unreflected" need either links or definitions, inline or in a note.
    Changed to "where M is the surface area and k is the average neutron multiplication factor" and linked neutron reflector. (If I had written it, I would have said "untamped") Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the reaction power will increase slowly, with a long time constant, slow enough": since you're not presenting the math behind this, "time constant" doesn't really give the reader much, so I think you could cut this to "the reaction power will increase slowly enough".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The nearby North Stands had a pair of ice skating rinks on the ground floor, which although unrefrigerated, seldom melted in winter": it's too easy to parse this so that "which" refers to the ground floor, so I'd suggest rephrasing. I'm also not clear why it's mentioned -- just to show that the location where the pile was built was extremely cold in winter? If so, I'd say that.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Leona Woods completed her doctoral thesis and then was detailed to build boron trifluoride neutron detectors": suggest "Leona Woods was detailed to build boron trifluoride neutron detectors as soon as she completed her doctoral thesis".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The shake is only mentioned once; I think it should probably be relegated to a note.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There's some repetition of the discussion of the delayed neutrons and their importance to criticality. Can this be reduced? The later discussion is written as if the earlier discussion did not exist.
    Somebody added the earlier explanation. Cut it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

-- First pass completed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

J. R. Kealoha[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about J. R. Kealoha, the only Native Hawaiian combatant of the Civil War whose gravesite (in the island) is known by modern historian. Efforts to posthumously honor him especially his unmarked grave occurred at a period of renewed interest in Hawaiian soldiers who fought in the American Civil War while Hawaii was an independent kingdom. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments -- recusing from coord duties...

  • I've copyedited so pls let me know any concerns there; outstanding points re.prose/content:
    • "he and another Hawaiian soldier met the Hawaii-born Colonel Samuel Chapman Armstrong, who recorded their encounter in a letter home" seems over-detailing for the lead.
    • Does it really take three citations to source the sentence "The marker was formally dedicated and unveiled on October 25, 2014"?
  • Re. images, I'll take Nikki's review as read.
  • Re. sources, all links work, and nothing leapt out at me as a serious concern reliability-wise; formatting looked okay as well. I'm not sure that the documentary Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War needs to be in External Links when it's cited in the text, but that's a minor thing.

A nice, succinct, article -- I can see the number of sources employed and appreciate that info on these guys is often thin on the ground. Before I support, I'd like to see further commentary from others more experienced in Civil War-related history, perhaps Wehwalt and Coemgenus, to name two who come to mind, though I appreciate there probably aren't many editors that familiar with Hawaiian participation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't know a thing about it, though 'll take a look at it, and will poke around for sources, but you must allow me a few days, as I am traveling and have also promised Montanabw a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look today or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


  • There's not a lot known about Kealoha, which concerns me, but everything that is known is presented in an orderly and readable manner. Articles like this are always hard to assess for FA, but I think there shouldn't be a problem.
  • The sourcing all seems impeccable, no complaints there.
  • The only error I noticed concerns the location of Camp William Penn--it was in Cheltenham, Pennsylvania, not Philadelphia. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I corrected the location for Camp William Penn. I got that connection with Philadelphia from Benjamin Cox's source. As for the additional info about Kealoha, this is all that is known about him. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Hawaii-born", "Hawaiʻi": consistency
  • "has come to represents": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Wehwalt about the Sons of the Civil War. We don't repeat information in the lead, and this information is prone to misinterpretation. I tried to fix it, twice. - Dank (push to talk) 08:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment I've looked at the article. I don't see anything glaringly wrong or problematical. My internet's sort of intermittent right now but when I get a chance I'll run some searches through my GMU databases and see what I come up with. A number of specific comments:

  • "unconditional surrender" (lede and body) Was Lee's surrender truly unconditional? There were certainly terms granted, everyone was paroled and allowed to go home with small arms, horses, etc.
  • I don't see why Hawaii is sometimes spelled with the ', and sometimes not.
  • It is an okina, glottal stop commonly used in Hawaiian spelling. It is pretty consistent in the article. the only instances It is not used isin quotes, when referring to the state or territory unit (this is in the MOS for Hawaii wikiprojects), and or when suffixed by -ian. This is common practice used in writing about Hawaiian history.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "He was among a group of more than one hundred documented Native Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants, the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War", who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was still an independent nation." I think some rephrasing should be done to make it clear they didn't fight as a group, as this sentence could be read to imply. I also don't see the need for the whole long title twice in the lede, especially given its evident recent coinage.
  • I'm reverting back to the version used in the intro for Henry Hoolulu Pitman's article. If it work there I think it should be fine here. I don't think it would come off as they fought in a group..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • " a United States Colored regiment" I would cut all but "a regiment", piping to those two words perhaps
  • Abbreviated to USC to add variation.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "volunteered and enlisted in the military regiments of various states in the Union and the Confederacy." I might consolidate to "volunteered for service in the forces of the Union and the Confederacy" That should be broad enough to cover state regiments
  • It is unclear if the clause in the first paragraph of "Life", relating to opposition to slavery, refers to Hawaiians or New Englanders.
  • I don't see that problem and it can mean both to be honest because both the New Englanders and Hawaiians apposed slavery. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not clear why DVA changed its mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Because they never did. I restore the original wording because the 2009 policy change which came into effect in 2012 is a significant reason why they were denied. The Hawaiian group relied on a private monument maker to create the marker. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Let me know if there is anything else to address. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I've now run some searches, and came up with articles in the Hawaii papers that are already used as sources or contain analogous information. So although the subject is small in available information, the article appears comprehensive and it's well written and otherwise seems to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

St Botolph's Church, Quarrington[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

St Botolph's is an Anglican church in Quarrington, for much of its history a small village in the English county of Lincolnshire. The oldest parts of the building are from the 13th century although a church has existed in the village since the Conquest. The church has some "puzzling" architectural elements, according to Nikolaus Pevsner, while its age mean it is grade II* listed. This article complements the GA-class one on the village itself, and forms part of a project to improve coverage of Sleaford articles. After a bit of an editing hiatus (owing to my studies), I am bringing it here. I believe it is comprehensive, reliably sourced throughout and neutral; the structure seems to follow many of the other Anglican church articles. As only my second FAC, I am not expecting this to be perfect; any constructive comments, queries and suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC).

Image is appropriately licensed, but it would be nice to see some images of the interior. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for conducting the image review. I agree that it is a shame there are no photos of the interior, but I haven't been able to find any free ones and won't be able to go there any time soon. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC).
I am not familiar with how the word "fee" is used in the lead.
Linked to fief.
but the Bishop of Lincoln presented the rector during the early 16th century - ditto "presented" here?
Linked to advowson.
link tracery in the lead?
Charles Kirk the younger - should the last word be capitalised here?
Capitalised 'younger'.
I'd unabbreviate Rev.
Expanded both instances in the 'Description' section to 'the Reverend'
The rectory was constructed in c. 2000 - why not put year or year range in?
The source says 'in about 2000', so I've used that wording.
Incidentally, I'd change all c.s to "around" to make it prosier.
All instances should now be changed to 'about'.
Thank you very much for your comments. I will correct them within the next 24 hours and ping you when I'm done. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC).
@Casliber: Thank you once again for these comments. Hopefully I've addressed all of your concerns, do let me know if there are any more. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC).
A "very narrow" chancel arch existed - why the quote marks? Maybe just say "slender" or "narrow" and drop them.
I've reworded as you suggest.
Also, for completeness, any info on surrounding grounds/churchyard?
@Casliber: Thanks for your comments. I've been unable to find anything about this online or in the printed material I have. I suspect that the churchyard has long closed, and burials now take place in the cemetery in Sleaford (see St Denys' Church, Sleaford); this is managed by Sleaford Town Council, which is responsible for Quarrington. Stating this would be OR, however. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Okay, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Not my forte though... cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • " the present priest-in-charge is the Reverend Mark Stephen Thomson, who took over from the Reverend Sandra Rhys Benham in 2016". The word "present" is better avoided as it may become out of date.
  • Removed.
  • "1–3 were under 16" 1 to 3 or 1 in 3?
  • the former, I have used the word 'to'.
  • First paragraph of the background section. There is very little about St Botolph's in this paragraph. Most of it belongs in the article on Quarrington (where it is briefly covered) rather than in this article.
  • While the first sentence or two are not relevant to the church directly (and I have now removed these), much of the remainder of the paragraph deals with whether Quarrington had a church (or two) in the early medieval period; even if this were not St Botolph's, it would have been a predecessor to it. I have altered the last sentence to be more explicit about this. Let me know if this is still a problem.
  • "In the latter half of the 16th century, the living of Old Sleaford became "extremely poor" and the church probably fell out of use." presumably you mean Old Sleaford church - "its church probably fell out of use" would be clearer.
  • Yes, I've changed this accordingly.
  • "some time after the restoration" Which restoration - the one in 1660?
  • I've corrected this and linked.
  • "This was replaced in 1812 by a Georgian-style building" But you say above that parts of the medieval building survive.
  • Do you know where it says that the chancel itself survives? If it's the sentence saying "A slender chancel arch existed until the mid-19th century and might have been pre-Conquest", then that chancel arch—the arch connecting the chancel with the rest of the church—remained intact until the mid-19th century (presumably till Kirk's restoration in the 1860s), despite the chancel itself being rebuilt in the meantime. I've made it clear later that Kirk also widened the arch, along with adding his chancel.
  • "building" implies that the whole church was rebuilt. I would suggest "Georgian-style chancel". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "the Church had 120 sittings" I assume you mean space for 120 people, but I think this needs explaining.
  • Yes, I've used your wording.
  • "Historic England suggest" No reason for the italics and Historic England is not italicised above.
  • You're right, well-caught.
  • There is a Harv error on ref 23. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing an error with ref 23 – let me know if it's still playing up.
  • It is ref 20 now. I am not sure what the problem is as I do not use the citation template. You have to have the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors tool installed to see harv ref error warnings. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your comments above, I've replied to all of them and hopefully addressed them through this edit. If you have any further feedback, do let me know. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC).
@Dudley Miles: Thanks again for clarifying those points - they should be addressed now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC).
There is still a problem with ref 20. When you click on refs 4 and 5 you go to the source, but when you click on 20 nothing happens. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Okay, I've fixed it – the name didn't include the word "Council" and so was not linked. I've installed the script and it's not showing any errors. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC).
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC).

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

  • Casliber, Dudley Miles: Are you both comfortable with the Description section? It doesn't sound very FA-like to me. I wanted to give this one a third support, but I don't think I can get past that section. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Dank, could you perhaps be more explicit anout your issues with this section. I'm happy to make changes where appropriate. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC).
  • I take your point Dank. Most of the description seems to be in the 'Architecture and fittings' section. How about merging the two sections as a single 'Description' section? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd make the 'Architecture and fittings' a subsection of 'Description' yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm. My point is that if I came across the Description section as a web page, not knowing what I was looking at, I would guess that it was a page from a travel guide or a local advertisement; I would never guess that it was a page from an encyclopedia. But I get the sense that I am unanimous in this, so I'll move on. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dank, I have now merged the 'architecture and fittings' section into the 'description' section and put what was already there above it under the sub-heading 'location, services and facilities'. To be fair, a church is home to an Anglican community, so details of services, seating capacity, available facilities and the incumbent priest seem to be appropriate (past reviewers of similar articles have suggested that I should have put more in). Besides, this sort of information may well come under Wikipedia's scope as a gazetteer. Anyway, do take a look and let me know if there are any bits which really do need trimming. Casliber, Dudley Miles: do let me know if you are still happy with the layout. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I stick to copyediting, and rarely make calls on content. Thanks for your efforts here. I'm moving on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Dank, okay, thanks for the input anyway. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC).
I would leave out the details of services. They are not encyclopedic, and anyone interested would need to check the church's own website to see whether they are up to date. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, I've done this now. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an Austro-Hungarian 250t-class torpedo boat that saw service in both world wars and in five different navies between 1914 and 1959. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • What was the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The only place I've seen it is on the website it was taken from. It is not in Greger (the most comprehensive reference on the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine), despite there being three photos of vessels of the class in that book (including one that is in Greger). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria - but the Austrian licence says "Austrian works are currently in the public domain in the United States if their copyright had expired in Austria on the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996)"; which it had. Is that bit wrong? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It will usually be right, but this case is an unusual one. My understanding is that under these circumstances it is wrong. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


  • " Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine) base at Cattaro". Why does Cattaro link to the Bay of Kotor instead of the port of Kotor (which Cattaro redirects to? Below (post WWI) you say "based at the Bay of Kotor". Why the change in how the name is shown and should it not be in the bay if it was based at several ports in the bay?
  • The Bay of Kotor had quite a few naval installations in it, not all of which were at Kotor itself. Sources tend to play fast and loose with references to Cattaro/Bocche di Cattaro and Kotor/Bay of Kotor, and it changes over time. The Italian names are commonly used for WWI, the Serbo-Croat ones are generally used for the interwar period and WWII.
  • I cannot see where the boat was built. Have I missed this?
  • Trieste, it is in the Background section.
  • "this contributed to ongoing problems with the boats" and "Due to inadequate funding, 76 T and the rest of the 250t-class were essentially coastal vessels" What were the problems and how did the inadequate funding restrict the boats' operations?
  • The sources don't really expand on this. My assumption is that restricted budgets meant that the build was less than optimum for sea-going craft, but exactly how that played out in the construction isn't clear.
  • A first rate article. Just a few nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you need to make clear that Cattaro is a bay and the same place as Kotor. Maybe change "at Cattaro" to "in the Bay of Cattaro" and below "in the Bay of Kotor (the Serbo-Croat name for Cattaro)". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No worries, Dudley. I've provided both the Italian and Serbo-Croat at first mention, then used the Serbo-Croat later on. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments A really nice little article. I see no glaring issues, but have noted a few details.

  • Title: Is there a particular reason that this article is titled T1? I'm guessing that there are more references in publications to this ship as T1 rather than 76 T, or because it was T1 for the longest continuous period in its career? My only beef with it is that it’s not immediately clear which nation it is part of when its career is summarised in the opening paragraph, and that the main body has more information on her Austro Hungarian career than any other.
    • Mainly because she saw the majority of her service as T1, including WWII. Sources are fairly evenly divided. WP:SHIPNAME provides some guidance, but length of service under this name is probably the best bet in this case.
  • Lead: I think the first sentence is a little detail heavy. Given it's the very first line, I think there's a touch too much information. The name is an issue, as are the details of the class. Following on from the title issue, the opening sentence gives the appearance that “250t-class, T-group sea-going torpedo boat” is a Yugoslav class, when in fact it’s not. The inclusion of the original name and nation in the same sentence only serves to make it more complicated. I’d suggest something more like “The Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 was a sea going torpedo boat of the Yugoslav navy between 1921 and 1941. Originally built as 76 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1913, she was armed with two 66 mm (2.6 in) guns and four 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes, and could carry 10–12 naval mines. She saw active service with the Austro Hungarian Navy during World War 1…” I feel the extra detail of the T-class, Skoda and L/30 guns is again a bit much for the lead and might be better confined to the main body.
    • I agree, I've made those suggested changes.
  • Background: I appreciate the comments above about Bay of Kotor, but coming to the article fresh, before having read the comments above, I found this confusing. At first I thought that Bocche di Cattaro was in the Bay of Kotor and couldn’t fathom why the Bocche is linked to the Bay article. It’s only from more carefully looking at the Bay article, and reading the comments above, that this layout makes sense. I personally would be inclined to display it as “… base at the Bay of Kotor (Bocche di Cattaro)… “ if indeed, Bocche di Cattaro is even needed? Surely the Bay of Kotor must cover the entire area of installations and therefore be accurate enough in itself?
    • The issue here is that the sources for that period mainly refer to the Austro-Hungarian base using its Italian name (which is weird), but I am happy either way. I've implemented your suggestion of reversing the names.
  • Background: I’m a little concerned that none of the strategic reasons for her build appear to be referenced. Does Conway’s ref in the second to last sentence cover all the detail in the preceding paragraph?
    • Yes.
  • Description: Why does Greger appear as a source before the end of the first sentence? If it only includes detail on the change in armament, is there a source for the reason for the change (ie. that it was “in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group”)?
    • Because Greger only covers the change, and the next citation covers why the change occurred.
  • World War I: I always learned at school that the first sentence of a paragraph should introduce the content of that paragraph. Here, the first sentence alludes to issues with the class design but does not expand on it, and this makes the paragraph look rather odd. How were the ongoing problems with the boats related to her deployment in the war? I rather think this sentence fits better in the preceding section as a closer, rather than the opener of her WWI service. Doing this would, I believe, make the rest of this paragraph flow more naturally.
    • I agree. I've moved it up to the Description section.
  • Post-War: Is there any information of her fate after being stricken?
    • Not that I'm aware of.

That’s about all, otherwise a nice little piece. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

All looks good Peacemaker67. My only outstanding query is the armament reference again. The reason I had not imagined that the next citation in the paragraph after Greger appears mid-sentence, is because the next citation used in that paragraph is the same source again (Greger, p58), and seems to relate more to the construction and launching of the vessel. If Greger is the source for all of the armament information, I'd be inclined to put that reference at the end of the bit about mines, which seems a bit more conventional. It would also clarify that the mines and reason for the armament change (“in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group”) is referenced - my original query was because it really doesn't appear to be.
Also, Looking more closely at the paragraph again, given that the second half is not really anything to do with the first, I'd be inclined to split it into two. So I'd envisage it looking like this:
The boats were originally to be armed with three Škoda 66 mm (2.6 in)L/30[a] guns, and three 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes,[1] but this was changed to two guns and four torpedo tubes before the first boat was completed in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group. They could also carry 10–12 naval mines.[2]
76 T was the third of its class to be completed, and was laid down on 24 June 1913, launched on 15 December 1913, and completed on 20 July 1914. Eight T-group boats were completed between February and December 1914, designated 74 T – 81 T.[2] In 1914, one 8 mm (0.31 in) machine gun was added.[1]
Hope that makes sense! Ranger Steve Talk 07:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Perfect sense. Done. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Great. I've made a tiny prose change and can definitely support this article. Ranger Steve Talk 11:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: This one looks ok. Can I have dispensation to nominate a fresh one? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, unless I've missed it, I think we'd need a source review before wrapping this one up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

CMLL World Middleweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, not just a list of champions but an article on the history of the championship, rules etc. This follows the format of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship which was recently promoted to FA and I have taken all input from that FAC, plus various GAs and FACs I've done on Mexican wrestling championships to hopefully produce a high-quality article worthy of the Feature Article status. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Support from starship.paint[edit]

  • Why does The championship has not been vacated since then have so many references?
  • Well that's the problem with claiming something has not happened - I don't have a source stating it, but sources for each title change to show there is no interruption, I am not sure how else to prove a negative like that. MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit ridiculous. I would write "Per the title history, the championship has not been vacated since then." Or you could use Wrestlingdata, although book sources are a priority. This goes for the later comment too. starship.paint ~ KO 01:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - sorry there is this one more above. starship.paint ~ KO 01:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - I think the "many references" issue is still outstanding...? See above :) starship.paint ~ KO 09:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: - I think Wrestlingdata and cagematch would be the way to go, I will replace the source.  MPJ-DK  13:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the relevance of the The exodus from CMLL to AAA also meant that paragraph to the CMLL World Middleweight Championship
  • It is about how CMLL promoted their middlewight division, that by the exodous they lost the Mexican National version of it, so the division focus was even more so on the CMLL version. It gives you the context of the division.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh and of course the fact that the champion left CMLL, forcing the title to be vacated.  MPJ-DK  22:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest some reordering and rewriting. In June 1992, many wrestlers left CMLL to join the newly formed Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA), which significantly affected CMLL's middleweight championships. The Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission allowed AAA to assume control of the Mexican National Middleweight Championship as then-reigning champion Octagón joined AAA. Meanwhile, the CMLL World Middleweight Championship was vacated due to then-champion Blue Panther's departure. Thus, CMLL held a 16-man...
  • El Dandy holds the record for most CMLL World Middleweight Championship reigns with three and is one of only three wrestlers to hold the title more than once, the others being Negro Casas and Emilio Charles Jr also has too many references...?
  • Again the challenge is that it's only by comparing all championship reigns it can be definitively proven it is the longest/most/etc. I am not sure how best to source that - even if I found say a 2008 source to cover it that still leaves a 2009-present gap. Any ideas? MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I will see what's in the FA and yes I probably can. MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Done and I will research the last major show the Middleweight Championship was defended at to add that info to the article.  MPJ-DK  22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why does the Wrestling Title Histories book have both 2000 and 2006 version cited? starship.paint ~ KO 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That has to be a typo, there is no 2006 version that I am aware of.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: Does the DragonRojoJr source mention the date "November 18, 2011"? (May have to use wrestlingdata and cagematch) Likewise, does it support the info for the paragraph "In June 1992"? starship.paint ~ KO 05:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: bump on above starship.paint ~ KO 12:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: - Good point, this is covering CMLL's weekly show the day before but never states the date it took place, which can be a challenge since this and other sites do such regular coverage of the night before they never state "last night" or anything like that. I will see if other sources mention the date or Cagematch will serve for the date as well.  MPJ-DK  16:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Found a source, someone who covers lucha libre on a regular basis had a "roll call of champons" and listed the date. I added it to the source already used.  MPJ-DK  16:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Good work! I'm now satisfied with the quality of the article. Support starship.paint ~ KO 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by LM2000[edit]

  • The last paragraph of the lede seems superfluous as the preceding sentence describes pro wrestling's scripted nature. WCW International World Heavyweight Championship was recently promoted to FA status and doesn't do this, the WT:PW RfC regarding how much of a disclaimer is needed on PPV articles may apply here as well. The one sentence disclaimer on CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship seems like a better alternative.
  • In "History" section, commas follow some dates but not others. For example, "In the late 1980s, EMLL..." and "On May 3, 2010, Jushin..."
  • In "History" section, " which was the first time the middleweight championship", "middleweight championship" should be capitalized as it's a proper noun. Alternatively, the "middleweight" could be dropped.LM2000 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @LM2000: - I have addressed your concerns. As for the the WCW FL, that should have a disclaimer of some sort otherwise it implies the championship was won competitively. So I adjusted to match the Feature Article disclaimer, I agree that one is better.  MPJ-DK  13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll Support this now.LM2000 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2003–04 football season was a memorable one for Arsenal players and supporters, their team became the first over a century to go an entire league campaign undefeated. Arguably manager Arsène Wenger's greatest achievement since arriving at the club, I'm hoping to get this to FA standard before his 20th anniversary in October. It's an comprehensive account of how the season panned out, filled with the essential statistics. I feel it satisfies the criteria hence the nom, and welcome any sort of comment, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

Arsenal fared below par in the cups, - speaking as a Spurs supporter, I take offence that "par" is assumed to mean Cup Final level or above. I'd just say "less well" here....
''.... meant Arsenal were considered front-runners for the Premier League +"title" here? Otherwise it sounds like they were in the Championship and frontrunners for promotion...
Tottenham had not beaten their rivals since November 1999 and their last win at Highbury came a decade ago - "a decade previous(ly)?"

Nothing is jumping out at mre prose-wise after reading through a couple of times, hence support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


  • "scored five past Inter Milan..." I would change past to against
  • "Pirès in the second half scored the winner.." I would switch it around so it reads Pires scored the winner in the second half
  • "Manchester United who now lay in second place." -> Manchester United, who were now in second place
  • "on 20 December 2003, the setting for where their title challenge "derailed" eight months ago." I think this could be worded better
  • "...put on a display Wenger reflected as being one of the best of the season." Why did Wenger rate the performance so highly? A quote would be nice
  • "Arsenal stood in first spot – two points clear of Manchester United." -> Arsenal were in first place, two points clear of Manchester United
  • "...winning five out of five matches." -> winning all five matches
  • "...which eclipsed a club record set by George Graham's team of 1990–91." Unless i'm missing something, the club record that was broken isn't specified.
  • "although they played one more game..." -> although they had played one more game
  • "as of 2013 is still the youngest player to turn out for the club." Is this still the case in 2016?

Looks good apart from these. NapHit (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC) @NapHit:, cheers for taking a look, I've made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I did a copyedit pass; please revert if I screwed anything up.

  • Suggest changing the table headings to "Loan expired" since they are all now expired.
  • You say 13 unbeaten matches was a record, and then later say 24 was the old record for Arsenal, and later say 30 was the league record. Presumably 13 beat the Premier League seasons record only -- if so, I think that should be clearer. When they reached 30, whose record did they beat? Come to that, when they beat 13, did they beat their own or someone else's record?
  • "who cut it back for Pirès to sidefoot": I don't see "sidefoot" in the source; am I missing something? All I see is "steer".
  • Any reason why you explain the competition for the League Cup and FA Cup, but not the Champion's League? I don't think I care which you do, but is there a reason not to be consistent?
  • "defensive improvements, which rued them a year ago": "rued" is the wrong word here; I think you mean something like "since defensive mistakes the previous season had been costly".
  • "the first scheme was a relative success as only a third of all bonds were sold": I don't follow; why does this make the scheme a relative success?
  • Tweaked this, the bond scheme didn't do as well as the club anticipated but they made lots of money is where I was going with it.

-- That's everything I can see; the article is in fine shape and I expect to support once these issues are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. Great article; even a Chelsea fan like me can appreciate it. One more suggestion, since I had to look this up: when you say that 30 matches unbeaten from the start of the season is a record, I think it would be good to add a note explaining that the Preston North End unbeaten season was only 22 league matches long. I'd assumed (without really thinking about it) when I read about their record at the top of the article that it was 42 matches, like the old First Division. However, I'm happy to support whether you add that or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Mike, have added a note now. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

  • Kit images: Is there a source somewhere for how the kit looks?
  • File:Arsene Wenger.JPG: Free image on Commons. It's a photo of the manager of the club, the caption is supported by the text, seems pertinent insofar as the section of the article in question discusses his role in the club. Plausible EXIF, license supported by external source, but the source link should not directly point to the file especially when it's broken. Also I see that the file exists elsewhere on the web in higher resolution, but these files look like they are zoomed in; some are attributed back to Commons.
  • File:Robert Pires2.JPG: Free file on Commons. Caption is supported a bit farther down in the article text, the image seems pertinent as it illustrates a person with relevance to the events described in the paragraph. Same comments on the license and EXIF and web presence as above.
  • File:Thierry Henry 2007.jpg: Free image on Commons. Caption seems to be supported elsewhere in the section (it was one league match?), the image shows an individual who is mentioned a few times in the section - moderately relevant. No EXIF and the often inconsistent EXIFs of the uploader's other files bother me a little. Doesn't appear elsewhere on the web though, mostly.
  • File:Trophy presentation Highbury 2004.JPG: Free image on Commons. Same comments on the license and EXIF and web presence as on Wenger and Pires files, but no higher size files online. A bit confused by the caption - the ceremony takes place at Highbury which is Arsenal's home stadium but the trophy ceremony mentioned in the text takes place at their rivals' stadium?
  • File:Revie Stand, Elland Road.jpg: Free image on Commons. Caption supported by the filepage, the stadium photographed is apparently the place where one of the events described there took place. Image is from Flickr and has plausible EXIF; why does the Flickr link redirect to a login page? Image appears elsewhere on the web, sometimes with attribution to Commons and sometimes not.
  • File:Sign, Highbury Stadium - - 293931.jpg: Free image on Commons. File comes from an external webpage which shows a matching license. I wonder about commons:COM:Freedom of panorama though, does it apply here? Otherwise, image is pertinent to the section; I presume the caption is taken from the Commons filepage?
  • File:Arsenal open top bus parade 2004.jpg: Free image on Commons. Image is pertinent to the section and has plausible caption. I notice from looking at the deleted revisions that the Commons file has a lower resolution than the deleted enwiki file, may be worth remedying. No EXIF, but no larger resolution copies on the web.

Otherwise, all the ^files need WP:ALTTEXT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Jo-Jo, have added the alt text. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Ecstatic[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 2009 album by American rapper Mos Def. It was his first album after changing labels and was viewed by journalists as a creative comeback, after two poorly received albums and his greater devotion to acting roles. It was titled after the Victor LaValle novel, whose titled Mos Def felt evoked his singular, unprecedented creative vision for the album. The Ecstatic has been noted for having an internationalist quality, sampling a range of global styles while including references to global politics and Islam in Mos Def's eccentric, conscious raps. It performed modestly sales-wise, but was a widespread critical success and named one of 2009's best albums by several publications. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: support - great article - one that can be held up as an example for all others.Timtempleton (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This article looks clean and organized to me, I suggest for it to be featured. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support This is a well-written article. Good candidate for FA. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by Jonesey95[edit]

Reviewing criterion by criterion:

  • Well-written: Yes. Prose looks good to this veteran copy editor. I may have missed a tiny thing here or there.
  • Comprehensive: Yes. All normal aspects of album articles are present.
  • Well-researched: Yes. Sources are abundant in all sections.
  • Neutral: Yes. No evidence of POV.
  • Stable: Yes. One primary editor improving the article over the last few months, no significant reverts or talk page drama.
  • Lead: Yes. Well done.
  • Appropriate structure: Yes. All normal aspects of album articles are present.
  • Consistent citations: Not quite (98% done) Yes. Find some way to deal with the date errors using the {{harvid}} template and some creative renaming of the "Anon n.d." sources, possibly using the titles of the articles.
  • Media: Yes. Licensing appears to be in order. Number and size of images is appropriate.
  • Length: Yes. Appropriate for the subject.

Summary: Very well done. Find a way to deal with the date errors in the Anon citations, and this should pass easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been fixed @Jonesey95:, thanks to DrKay ([18]) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I Support this FA nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Fair bit o' images here, so...

  • File:The Ecstatic.jpg: Nonfree album cover, as these usually are. Has a default non-free use rationale with all the details, which seems to fit. Inclined to say that each WP:NFCC item is satisfied.
  • File:Mosdef (300dpi).jpg: Free file on Commons, it seems like using it to illustrate the creator in the section for the background of the album's creation makes contextual sense. Comes from Flickr, plausible EXIF, file elsewhere on the web at lower resolution. Caption refers to the Commons description, yes?
  • File:Auditorium - Mos Def.ogg: Non-free song sample. Fair use rationale seems to check out all the points, including WP:NFCC#8 but the context the article provides for the sample is a bit thin - if the sample was removed, would a reader lose much of the understanding? Caption is sourced, I'll leave it to others to assess its significance.
  • File:Moorish Science Temple 1928 Convention.jpg: Free file on Commons, it was used as the back cover and thus its use in the section on the packaging is pertinent. Caption is sourced in the article. The {{PD-US-no notice}} tag requires publication - do we have proof of it? I agree the "No notice" bit is met unless the notice was cropped out.
  • File:Preservation in Budapest 2007 - 01.jpg: Free file on Commons, is in a section where Preservation is extensively discussed so I'd say it's pertinent. File is from Flickr, plausible EXIF which points to the Flickr account. No indication whatsoever of any impropriety by the Flickr account.

The infobox file has an ALT text but I wonder how old that fellow is. The other files need ALT text as well, per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added ALT text to the other images. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review - all OK[edit]

  • section Personnel - source? (Probably best to add a small intro sentence to include the source(s), similar to "Track listing")
  • Other than that, thorough and consistent referencing - OK.
  • No dead links - OK.
  • No DAB links - OK.
  • The citation style (for example: using shortened footnotes for single-use references, labelling 10+ references as "Anon", specifying only the year of publication when a full date is available) looks a bit odd and overly complicated in my opinion. However, this style is used consistently and provides all necessary information. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CITEVAR my personal taste is irrelevant here ;) ==> reference structure is OK.
  • Information is based on reliable sources for the topic (acknowledged websites, magazines, newspapers) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


  • A quick comment about File:Auditorium - Mos Def.ogg. I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus, that the written context between file and article is a bit thin. But assuming the sample is a representative example of the album's general style, it significantly helps the reader's understanding of this album and is within common WP:NFCC practice. Usage should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Cool, and I've added a citation to the personnel section @GermanJoe: Dan56 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
All OK now - status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe this article has now met a consensus to be promoted and would like to ask @Ian Rose: if he can determine the same and formally close the nomination. Dan56 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Ursula K. Le Guin's 1969 novel The Left Hand of Darkness. It is a seminal work of science fiction, and has been influential in other literature as well. I have rewritten this article entirely, gotten it through GAN, and sought additional opinions at PR. I believe it meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many scholarly works about it as possible, and synthesizing major themes from those. I look forward to hearing feedback. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado[edit]

This is a well-written and interesting article. A few comments:

  • Lead
  • Setting
    • the background idea of a common origin for all the humanoid species: expand a bit? There are other authors who have used this theme (Larry Ǹiven if I remember correctly, for example). You could alternatively do this in the Hainish universe themes section, where human expansion (subtly different) is mentioned.
      • I've taken a stab at elaborating this; let me know if this addresses your concern. I'm not trying to suggest that that thought experiment is unique, because it isn't.
        • That is now fine, but it is not really addressing my point (which I probably did not make clearly): the corresponding content in Hainish universe themes refers to "human expansion" and confuses the point by referring to Asimov's universe which was almost exclusively populated by humans of Earth origin. The Hainish universe themes content needs to be consistent with the Setting content. It will also be necessary to avoid mere repetition. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
          • To be honest I'm still not entirely sure I understand: both the Hainish cycle and Asimov's works involve human expansion, except that in the Hainish cycle humans evolve on Hain, and expand from there. What would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
            • We can leave this for a while, it is a relatively minor point. I will think further. --Mirokado (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Reading this again, I think it is OK as it stands. --19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception
    • hugely positive critical responses: "overwhelmingly positive" would be better idiom.
      • done
    • The novel sold more than a million copies in English alone.: First-edition printings? in the first year? "has sold"?
      • This is strangely tricky; I've spent a lot of time searching, and it seems like nobody keeps track of how many copies of a book have been sold. Even trickier because this one has been issues in a number of editions. The information I have there is what a recent magazine article said, and it neglected to provide detail. I've tweaked the sentence a little to say "by 2014" which was when that article was published, and I'm going to keep trying for more detail.
        • This is now clear. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Budrys: I suggest moving the sentence at the end of the paragraph after the first sentence so that all Budrys' comments are together.
      • done
  • Shifgrethor and communication
    • Eventually, the two are able to converse directly with mindspeech, but after Ai is able to understand Estraven's motivations, and no longer requires direct communication.: "but after" is not clear. Do you mean "after which" or "but only after"?
      • done. Yes, "but only after" is what it should have been.
  • Style and structure
    • The structure of the novel was unorthodox enough that it was initially confusing to reviewers, before it was interpreted as an attempt to follow the trajectory of Ai's changing views.: Is it possible to give examples, perhaps quotes, to illustrate what seems to be an important evolution of commentary? Do we know who first published the changed interpretation?
      • This is also rather difficult, because this "initial difficulty" is not from my own interpretation, but directly taken from Donna White's book; and she doesn't mention specific reviews, but points to a general trend (ie its her own analysis, based on many reviews). Would it help if I stated that in so many words, or alternatively excised that sentence?
        • Please don't remove the information, it illustrates the ground-breaking nature of the novel. An inline attribution to White (similar to "Darko Suvin, one of the first academics to study science fiction, stated that ...") would be fine. --Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Tweaked it; take a look.
            • Thanks, this is clear now and you have avoided the rather clumsy "unorthodox enough". You could tighten the text a bit by avoiding some repetition: "Writing in 1999, literary scholar Donna White stated that this unorthodox structure meant that ...". Please also have a look through the article for occurrences of "stated", it is getting overused. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
              • You're quite right. I've tweaked that sentence, and replaced many instances of "stated." Let me know if it's still excessive.

I will add a few open comments and questions, I hope tomorrow. --Mirokado (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Interrupted today: I will post some more later. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mirokado: just wondering if you had had the time to take another look at this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I had a "rather hectic" week, I hope to comment further this weekend. --Mirokado (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
RL happens. No worries; looking forward to hearing your feedback. Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the article again.

  • lead (arrr, Background):
    • a term which she got from her father: "got" is a bit colloquial, how about "a term coined by her father"?
      • Done (not in the lead, fyi)
  • 80 or 81?:
    • and the pair begin an 80-day trek ... During their 81-day journey ...: use either the approximation or the exact figure in both places?
      • Approximate is better: done.
  • Estraven:
    • Convention required that they separated after they had produced a child together; however, because of the first vow, the vow he makes with Ashe Foreth, which also is broken before the events in Left Hand, ...': several problems here:
      • since the second vow was before the events in Left Hand, we probably need past tense here as for "they separated" earlier,
        • done
      • Ashe Foreth is only mentioned here, either just mention "a second vow with another partner" or explain briefly who Ashe Foreth is,
        • I'm not certain how to handle this, because Ashe is not very important to the story (he has no role besides Estraven's partner) but is a named character in the adaptation described below, so removing him seems a little odd. I've changed it to "a second vow with Ashe Foreth, another partner"; do you have a better suggestion?
        • This is now OK, well done (I searched for "Foreth" and did not notice the later "Ashe").
      • I would write "which was also ..." rather than "which also was ..." (word order, after taking account of the tense change).
        • done
  • References:
    • The 30em columns for the short notes are a bit wide: 24em looks OK and would allow for any slightly longer note line later on.
      • done

The following remarks are not absolutely requesting any change, but I will welcome either a change or your comment justifying the current text.

  • Setting:
    • were the subjects of genetic experiments, including on Gethen. ... Winter is, as its name indicates, a planet that is always cold.: If I remember correctly (I read the book in the early seventies and it is now hiding somewhere in a box), the genetic modification on Gethen had something to do with an adaptation for survival in the cold climate. If the motivation for the genetic modification is indeed mentioned in the novel, we could include it here.
      • Actually I'm not sure that this is the case. I've skimmed the novel and the sources again, and nowhere can I see something that suggests the experiments were specifically for cold adaptation. Indeed the following passage, which is the one most directly relevant, suggests otherwise: "From field notes of Ong Tot Oppong, Investigator, of the first Ekumenical landing party on Gethen/ Winter, Cycle 93 E.Y. 1448.

day 81. It seems likely that they were an experiment. The thought is unpleasant. But now that there is evidence to indicat