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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Ike Altgens[edit]

Nominator(s): —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I swore I would never put myself through this again ... but this article deserves its place in the sun.

Promoted to FA status in 2006, it fell into disrepair and was demoted in 2010. After a good deal of work and a peer review that went nowhere, I brought it to FAC in 2014 only to watch it die on the vine. Instead, I went to GAN, where Location quite properly put it through the ringer, and MrBill3 lent a vital hand in bringing the article to GA status. It has been virtually untouched since—stable, thorough, correct, and ready. I am bound by necessity to try this again. —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In 1885 George Frederic Watts's adopted granddaughter died, leading to the state bailout of General Motors, drone warfare in the Middle East, and the PRISM program; I may have omitted a few intervening stages, but the basic causality is there. Hope is an artwork which 99% of those who see it consider the irredeemable nadir of Victorian sentimentalist kitsch. However, the 1% has included some disproportionately influential individuals, including back in 1990 a young attorney called Barack Obama. Thanks to Sagaciousphil and Ceoil for cleaning and tweaking. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Two notes:

  • The story as given here doesn't entirely tally with the official version as given by Tate Britain, where this painting currently resides, and the Tate's version isn't used as a source or given as an EL. This is intentional; the Tate's version contains demonstrably untrue comments (e.g. "Watts also omitted the star, the only note of optimism, at the top of the picture" when the star in question is very obviously still present) that I don't consider it trustworthy, and I suspect that it contains intentional errors as a means to track plagiarists. Most of the sources here are either from the Watts Gallery themselves, or impeccable expert publishers like the National Gallery of Art and the Yale Center for British Art, so I'm inclined to follow their version of events.
  • I know long quotes are frowned upon, but I feel the two lengthy quotes from Barack Obama necessary; the first, where he recounts his recollection of Jeremiah Wright describing it, demonstrates that the Hope which inspired Obama is based on a misconception (either Wright misremembering the painting, or Obama misremembering his words) as "the valley below where everywhere are the ravages of famine" doesn't actually exist in the original, while the second makes it explicit that the "hope" of Obama's early speeches and of The Audacity of Hope is explicitly a reference to this painting, not to the abstract concept. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

  • Comment. Hi Iridescent, this is a very nice article, and I'm enjoying reading it. A couple of points in passing:
  • There's a sentence in the lead that I don't understand, especially "in response to social, economic and religious changes: "An effort to break with traditional methods of depicting hope in response to social, economic and religious changes, it was radically different from previous treatments of the subject.
  • It's a clumsy attempt to summarise the second paragraph of the Subject section in a single sentence, as the lead is already quite cluttered. Basically, the Panic of 1873 had knocked the economy into a slump from which it hadn't yet recovered, church attendance had nosedived (and Watts didn't much like the church anyway), and the emergence of industrial capitalism had brought in what he saw as a culture of greed; Hope was an effort to create something which rejected traditional imagery so that its message would have meaning in a modern society where the iconography of Christianity and the images of traditional English scenes no longer had meaning to the audience. (He can reasonably be said to have succeeded, since—if you disregard the sentimentality—the actual meaning of the painting is as clear to modern viewers as it was in his own time.) ‑ Iridescent 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's hard to summarize. Perhaps try "Radically different from traditional methods of depicting hope, the painting shows a ..."? You could link "traditional methods" to the Subject section or just leave it unexplained. SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would leave out the two sentences beginning "In light of Obama's well-known interest in Watts's painting ..." unless you can find a better source. The first source is just a suggestion from a party activist and the second is the Daily Mail. SarahSV (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Both the proposal and the alleged rejection are mentioned on p64 of Tromans's book—the references seem to have been lost in transit, I've now added them. Tristram Hunt isn't just an activist, he was (pre-Corbyn) one of the intellectual driving forces behind the Labour Party in its third term (the period in question) so a public statement from him would have been understood to have been cleared by the party. I included the Daily Mail citation, along with the "According to an unverified report in the Daily Mail", precisely to make it clear to readers that this is coming from a potentially unreliable source. (In this case, I assume the Mail is correct in that Obama was actively avoiding the painting—given his previously expressed interest in it, even were the offer of a loan untrue he would certainly have been offered the opportunity to either visit it at the Tate or have it brought to somewhere he was attending while on a state visit—but I don't really want to be saying it in Wikipedia's voice.) ‑ Iridescent 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding Troman. I would still remove the Daily Mail. SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple of punctuation questions:
  • "In late 1885 Watts's adopted daughter Blanche Clogstoun had just lost her infant daughter Isabel to illness ..." If Blachne was his only adopted daughter, it needs commas around the name; ditto if Isabel was the only infant daughter, though that might not be known.
  • This quote needs something around "poor little tinkle", unless the author wrote it without. "Hope sitting on a globe, with bandaged eyes playing on a lyre which has all the strings broken but one out of which poor little tinkle she is trying to get all the music possible, listening with all her might to the little sound—do you like the idea?" I can't see the source, but the Telegraph has dashes around it. SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The author wrote it with just two commas (here, p. 2): "I am painting a picture of Hope sitting on a globe with bandaged eyes playing on a lyre which has all the strings broken but one out of which poor little tinkle she is trying to get all the music possible, listening with all her might to the little sound, do you like the idea?" SarahSV (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the joint 10th oldest national association football team worldwide, a team that achieved an Olympic gold medal and topped the FIFA World Rankings. The needed attention has been paid to the description of all of the team's aspects throughout its long history, and to illustration with suitable images. A prior FAC received plenty of positive feedback, but ultimately several issues related to prose and referencing came up. In response, intense efforts further smoothened the text and lifted the references to a very high standard. I feel confident that this article is FA-worthy now, but of course, any suggestions to further fine-tune its text or lay-out will always be welcome. Thank you for your comments! Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks very good. A few points:

  • "longstanding"—I think that's hyphenated in both US and UK English.
  • "its supporters' group is named 1895"—I paused on that, and didn't want to. Maybe italicise the name, or put it in quotes? And would you consider "its support group ..."?
  • I dislike raggle-taggle flagicons in infoboxes (bad enough when they're vertically aligned); the countries are already named. And on that point, the country-name pipes that go to specific sections or offspring articles are OK, but I see "Brussels" and "Belgium" and "London" and "England" just plain-linked, which is not encouraged. Can you unlink or find specific links? Just to be tiddly, please consider lowercase F in two places: "First in 1930". Just slightly smoother for readers to connect them better with the preceding.
  • It's on the verge of being over-reftagged. They are all functionally different, I guess, and not consecutively repeated. Any opportunity to trim would be welcome; e.g. "In the three 1920s Summer Olympics, they achieved fair results (four wins in seven games), and played their first intercontinental match, against Argentina.[28][29][30]" ... does that need three separate refs? It's hardly contentious.

I haven't gone further in because I got bored not being able to find glitches. :-) Must remember your username. Tony (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Pallas's leaf warbler[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's been nearly two years since I nominated here, but I'm back with the charismatic "seven-striped sprite". This is a Siberian bird species, common in its homeland, but a treat in Europe. I hope the rules haven't changed too much, and that my submission doesn't show too many signs of rust Jimfbleak (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Support -- A facinating article, Jim, and one I've no problems in supporting:

  • "The English name of Pallas's leaf warbler commemorates the German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas, who discovered it on the Ingoda River in Siberia in May 1772, naming it as Motacilla proregulus in 1811". -- Why did it take nearly 40 years to name this species? I'm also not keen on the +ing. Would it be impertinent of me to suggest splitting the last part of this sentence with a semi-colon and saying: "named it Motacilla proregulus in 1811"? Also, after "Pallas", but before "who", is there really any need for the comma?
  • "In the case of the former subspecies of Pallas's leaf warbler, even though they differ only slightly in plumage, the southern forms are very distinctive vocally, with songs and calls differing markedly from those of the nominate race, and DNA analysis has confirmed these forms to be sufficiently distinct that they are now treated as separate species, namely." -- This is a little too long for comfortable reading. It split this off when you speak of the DNA.
  • "In Asia, it can be distinguished..." -- If this were a biography about a person, the noun would be preferred at the start of a new paragraph rather than a pronoun. Why is this article any different?
  • "It has therefore been proposed that once the warblers reach northwest Europe, they then reorientate to a south easterly direction." -- who "proposed" this?
  • "Pallas's leaf warbler is not shy, but its unobtrusive arboreal lifestyle makes it difficult to observe. particularly in thick foliage." -- Check punctuation here.
  • "It is widespread, common and locally abundant in Russia and NE China." -- The "Pallas's leaf warbler" would be better for a new paragraph.

All fixes at your discretion. CassiantoTalk 17:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Cassianto, many thanks. I've made these changes. It took Pallas decades to finally publish Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica which has the formal description, and I've tweaked the text a little to reflect this. Otherwise I've followed your comments. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Cassianto, many thanks for your support. This has always been one of my favourite birds, and Andy Stoddart's book convinced me there was enough material for an FAC Jimfbleak (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Great to see you back at FAC!

  • "the German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas, who discovered it" Presumably it was known to peoples native to the area before he "discovered" it. Perhaps this could be rephrased?
  • That's actually arguable, given the similarity of these species, even to professional scientists. The UK's members of this genus were only finally resolved in 1840, and willow tit was even later. Nevertheless, changed to "found"Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you attached to your dashes? They look non-standard. Are they permitted by WP:DASH? Your style seems to alternate; compare "0.5–10 metres" with "12 – 13 days" (though I allow that I may just be confused here).
  • this seems to be a Wikied change, all fixed, (thanks Aa77zz) Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "trill" is undefined jargon. (As, for that matter, are "song", "call" and "rattle".)
  • Now linked. I think the meanings of the other three are self-evident enough Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the one-line paragraph at the end of the description section could be merged with the previous? You could more explicitly join them with "by contrast" or "in contrast" or similar.
  • Is "shy" the right word? "particularly cautious" or "overcautious" may be better?
  • The two vertical pictures in a row perhaps aren't ideal; they look a tad cluttered.
See below Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Any description of the eggs themselves? (I see now that it's mentioned with the cuckoo; maybe it could be moved? And perhaps the cuckoo should be mentioned with predators/parasites; any information available?)
  • Moved description. I couldn't find anything on predators (although there are obvious candidates like the Eurasian, Chinese and Japanese sparrowhawks) or parasites. There may be something tucked away in an obscure Russian or Chinese publication, but I have doubts whether this small Siberian waif has actually been studied in that detail. I was pleased to find the cuckoo to be honest. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Very readable. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for the review and kind words, all done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(Cautious) Support. The article seems very strong, but I will leave as an open question whether there are any sources/key facts missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for support. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing significant in English missing, and a Google Translate-assisted church found nothing obvious in Russian or Chinese. If there is something in those languages, it doesn't appear to be referenced in English sources. I found sources in French, German, Swedish and Latin, most of which I didn't need to use, but nothing in the Asian languages Jimfbleak (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • I thought we only needed the status on our Florida servers, added template as suggested now Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant home country, not host country. We need the image to be PD in its country of origin and in Florida for Commons; on enwp, it needs to be PD only in Florida. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything else looks fine, but I repeat my comment about the two vertical images giving the article a slightly cluttered feel. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I can see the problem, not sure what to do about it, though. The other unused Commons images of the warbler adds nothing to those already there, and I like the Gould image, which is clearly very relevant. Should I dump the habitat image? Thanks for image review Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a little better. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Images are fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Glad to see you back. The article looks good and there isn't much to quibble with.

  • Thanks for that, not the first time I've confused relatives, amended in text. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for interest - I'm not suggesting you include the info in the article but John Latham had already described the species in his A General Synopsis of Birds published in 1783 but he didn't provide a Latin name and a formal taxonomic description. Latham is cited by Pallas. Latham's brief description is here (n. 61): Above greenish: beneath pale-coloured: on the crown of the head a pale streak: over the eye a stripe of yellow. Inhabits Russia. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this. The entry is marked Yellow-browed W and appears to be describing that species rather than Pallas's. There is no mention of a yellow rump, the most striking feature of Pallas's and an obvious distinction from yellow-browed. Also, although it's more ambiguous, "on the crown of the head a pale streak" sounds a better description of a feature often found in yellow-browed than the more obvious yellow of Pallas's (HBW actually uses "pale" to describe the stripe of yellow-browed, whereas Pallas's is "warm buffy yellow anteriorly, paler yellowish or whitish at rear"). I may be missing something, but Latham appears to be describing what he says he is, rather than Pallas's warbler. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Aa77zz, thanks for kind words and for reviewing this article. I'd be grateful for any further clarification of your second point Jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm only reporting the content of the two primary sources. I agree that Latham's description suggests the yellow-browed warbler - but his use of the name is probably just coincidence as the species now known as the yellow-browed warbler presumably wasn't generally recognised until described by Blyth in 1842. (in his report Blyth doesn't specify an English name). Latham is notoriously unreliable (see the wiki article) but if he were working from a drawing, then the yellow rump may not have been apparent. I notice that neither of the two photos in the article shows the yellow rump. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 31 Snow & Perrins 1998 - why is there p. 1324 and p1337–1339?

I've add some urls in the references. The links should be stable - they are to the Biodiversity Heritage Library and to British Birds.

Support - an excellent article. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support and help, particularly finding links I missed. I've fixed the errant pagination in Snow & Perrins, some of which appears to have transfered from previous use in Common Chiffchaff. Thanks for the explanation for Latham, I'm inclined to not include it, given the confusion it adds, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now:

It is similar to several other Asian warblers, including some that were formerly considered to be its subspecies, but its distinctive vocalisations aid identification. - should there be a "for" after the "but" in the last clause?

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber, thanks for review. but for its distinctive vocalisations aid identification. seems ungrammatical unless there is a "which" too, as but for its distinctive vocalisations which aid identification.. I've just changed "but" to "although" for now, but if you prefer the but for... which... version, please change it, it's no big deal, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
My bad, I scanned the sentence incorrectly and didn't see the verb. Still, I think "although" is better than "but", hence no prose-clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for review and support, Jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Tony1[edit]

Jim, long time no contact. A few points:

  • "It is strongly migratory, wintering mainly in southern China and adjacent areas of southeast Asia, although increasing numbers are found in Europe in autumn." ... Is it ambiguous? That is, do you mean that numbers increase every autumn in Europe (as a normal part of migratory oscillations), or that increasingly we're finding them in Europe in autumn, like, per climate change?
  • Perhaps add "of" to make it flow grammatically (without "of" might be ok in a table header or section heading ("short texts"), but it's awkward in full prose): "It therefore is evaluated as "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." -> "It is therefore evaluated as of "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." I swapped the order of two words, too.
  • Comma after "Passal"? "and" before "named"? The second looks like a cut-and-paste error.
  • "comprises" might be to your liking instead of "contains".
  • "formerly separated as the genus Abrornis."—looks like a post-qualifier for the species, not the last item in that in-line list. Perhaps "; the species was formerly ..."? Except now I'm getting confused about species and genus and subspecies. Why not place that last phrase in the next paragraph: wouldn't that be more logical thematically?
  • "were accepted"—me not understand.
  • "previously" could be removed.
  • "had not always been accepted" -> "were not always accepted" ... I think ... perhaps you might check whether my hunch is wrong.
  • Long sentence with "with + -ing" connecter. "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler overlap in southern Gansu, but the species are separated ecologically, with the Gansu leaf warbler found in taller forest habitats and the Chinese leaf warbler using lower, often scrubby habitats." – Why not: "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler overlap in southern Gansu, but the species are separated ecologically: the Gansu leaf warbler is found in taller forest habitats, and the Chinese leaf warbler uses lower, often scrubby habitats."?
  • Trills redlink. Really?

I've only read the first part. Nice work. Tony (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Courtney Love[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Comment I've skimmed a bit and I'll start a close review soon. I want to make sure it's polished in as many respects as possible and there are no minor issues. That said, on its face this is likely among the very best rock biographies on Wikipedia and I'm sure it should and will pass. One quick point now that I make on any FA: you should preemptively archive all the links in the references with the |archiveurl=, |archivedate= and |deadurl=no parameters, with links from archive.org (or archive.is if archive.org doesn't work, sometimes it backs up things that archive.org won't). This will save time and possibly information if any links die in the future; basically all sources should be archived unless it's impossible due to robots.txt or being a pdf. ——BLZ · talk 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think editors should be wasting their limited time proactively adding archive links. That's an onerous and low value activity that should be performed by an automated script. It should not be tasked for FA candidates. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there a script for it? I think you are right that it's tedious, but all the same I don't think it's low value at all, it's a quite valuable safety measure for references. Featured articles are subject just like any others to the erosion of years and years of bizarre, senseless edits that degrade the quality of the article and may not all get caught. Leaving archived links assures the continued stability and reliability of an article. You would be surprised how often archive.org doesn't have a page you need on record, and you don't want to wait to check until it's too late. Ideally, featured articles should be at a level that don't need a review (other than adding new info) or delisting in 5, 10, 20, 30 years, and to me archiving links is a solution to one of the most foreseeable and easily resolved potential problems. —BLZ · talk 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes I have seen a bot that does that. No, I don't believe it has any business being part of the FAC review process. Doing this would make no difference in satisfying the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I've reviewed this article a couple of times now, and it still seems to be in good condition. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Bicycle kick[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 Talk 20:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Association football's notable acrobatic move, the bicycle kick. A prior FAC did not receive enough support. The improvements made since this FAC have clarified (and condensed) the move's history, nicely integrated the origin dispute into the popular culture section, and also made better use of the images. This article is ready for a FAC promotion; of course, any further feedback to suit any of your specific FAC requirements would be welcome and I have a growing track record (see my past FAC nominations on Peru national football team, Falkland Islands, and Pisco sour) in making sure that articles are of the highest standard for Wikipedia, its contributors and readers. Thank you!--MarshalN20 Talk 20:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A few comments[edit]

I'm not a football aficionado, but I glanced through this – it looks like a well-prepared and well-presented article. I have a few suggestions:

  • Please add date details to image captions, mostly missing at present. These would be very helpful to readers.
  • I think the "Origin controversy" section is oddly placed at the end of the article, and is also somewhat overdetailed. In my view the disputed origins of the kick would be better dealt with in a couple of crisp sentences at the start of the "History" section.
  • I'd consider renaming the "In popular culture" section; there's very little "popular" culture here (football culture, certainly), and popular culture sections are in my experience somewhat frowned on at FAC. Apart from a bit of trivia concerning TV adds, which I'd advise you drop, the section mainly summarises the iconic status of the bicycle kick in football, and perhaps a title such as "Iconic status" might be suitable?

I hope you get some decent comments from the football experts, and wish the article well. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Brian! I am currently suffocating on work, mostly checking a few papers from my students. I'll reply again sometime during the weekend. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: It's well written and seems to provide a thorough coverage of the topic. There look to be enough citations and they are in a proper format. I'd say it satisfies the FA criteria, so I'm lending my support. Nice work. Praemonitus (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--MarshalN20 Talk 16:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Comments by Brandt Luke Zorn[edit]

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

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

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

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

Comments by Aoba47[edit]

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

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for the comment and support. Cheers! DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Viking metal[edit]

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Viking metal, a style of heavy metal music based primarily on lyrical themes of the Vikings, the Viking age, and Norse paganism. I first started working on this article back in 2011, and, over time, became fascinated with the subject, came to enjoy the style of music, and delved into the scholarly research about Viking metal. My own interest and research seems to have paralleled with that of academia: Prior to 2010, far fewer sources discussion Viking metal existed, so the past six years have seen a sizeable increase in academic interest in the subject. Over the course of the past five years, myself and other editors have vastly improved this article. There was an conflict two years ago over the definitions and origins of Viking metal between myself and an anonymous editor, but we were able to arrive at a compromise that best summarized the existing literature. The article has subsequently become a good article and has undergone peer review. It adheres to basic policy regarding BLPs and copy-righted material. It adequately summarizes the topic, and covers all key aspects with the needed detail. It follows a consistent layout and reference style. I believe that this article is ready to be a featured article candidate.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • Can you replace during with "emerged in the early 1990s" in the lead
  • Once the band is introduced in the article's body, there's no need to repeat the description such as in "the band Bathory incorporated a diverse range"
  • Also Deena Weinstein should be just Weinstein in the third paragraph of "Thematic and lyrical focus"
  • There are some other minor c/e suggestions of mine, such as replacing symbolism with symbols and visual media with visuals (from the same section), but it's optional.
  • Can we have the name of Allmusic's reviewers who reviewed Enslaved's Eld?
  • I'm not 100% sure about this one, but isn't it "longing for return to paganism" (from "Burzum")
Support All in all, a great read. I wasn't aware there was material for an article like this to be promoted to FA.--Retrohead (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I've made those changes. I hope to eventually get the black metal, folk metal, and pagan metal articles up to the quality of this one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Cotton-top tamarin[edit]

Nominator(s): -- samtar talk or stalk 09:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Saguinus oedipus, one of the smallest primates and commonly found in tropical forest edges in northwestern Colombia. I believe it should be featured as it is well written and does indeed exemplify Wikipedia's best work. I believe it meets the requirements of becoming a featured article. -- samtar talk or stalk 09:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a question; did you contribute in the writing of the article? Zad68 seems to have nominated it for GA, will he participate? From the FAC instructions: "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." FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thank you for the question - no I have not contributed to the article, though I am familar with the subject matter. I've left a message on Zad's talk regarding the FA, though opted to nominate due to the inactivity of a number of main contributors - I hope this is not too much of an issue? -- samtar talk or stalk 10:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Preferably, you should have waited until Zad responded, but if you have acces to the sources and are familiar with them, it should be possible to follow through. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The World Before the Flood[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's fair to say that The World Before the Flood divides opinion. Dismissed by John Constable as "a revel rout of Satyrs and lady bums as usual" and condemned in the press for obscenity, it also drew great praise in some quarters, and was the subject of a ludicrously effusive poem by John Taylor. Having spent the last century on display in Southampton, which is something of an artistic backwater, it's not particularly well known, but it's an interesting aside in the story of English religious art. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sagaciousphil[edit]

The article uses the same reliable quality sources as those used in previous Featured Articles in the series. I added a couple of archive URLs and removed a dead URL from another ref that there wasn't an archive available for.

Subject

  • Both paragraphs start "The World before the Flood ..."; could the second para perhaps be re-jigged slightly?
  • Second paragraph: "...Archangel Michael, Michael ..."; can the immediate repetition be avoided?

Reception

  • Second paragraph: "The Athanaeum considered it ..." followed by the next sentence "Colburn's New Monthly Magazine considered it ..." replace one of the "considered it"?

Legacy

  • Final paragraph: It states paintings remain at York Gallery and Southampton Gallery "as at 2015" - should this be "as at 2016" as they seem to still be held there?

These are all just very minor nit picks in another very interesting article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

All fixed. Realistically neither painting will ever go anywhere—austerity has come to an end, so the risk of local authorities having to sell off their art holdings to make ends meet has dropped considerably, but someone will no doubt complain if it doesn't include a couple of {{asof}}s. ‑ Iridescent 15:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Support - thanks for tweaking so quickly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Great to see this here, reading through now... CassiantoTalk 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • "William Etty was born in 1787, the son of a York baker and miller. He began as an apprentice printer in Hull" -- Etty or his father?
  • Expanded a bit on this—I try to keep this background bit as short as possible, as I'm aware that someone reading through this series is having to read essentially the same story a dozen times. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And indeed you should. But the clarification you've made seems good enough without being too detailed. CassiantoTalk 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "with a few pieces of chalk crayons" -- who said this? Unattributed quotes, I find, are always unhelpful.
  • Alexander Gilchrist—the reference seems to have been lost somewhere along the line, re-added. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I've removed that "chalk crayons" bit altogether. It doesn't add anything, and it means this article avoids the use of Gilchrist's hagiography altogether. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude" -- At all other times he was fully clothed?
  • This was raised at the Dawn of Love FAC as well—I don't think any reasonable reader can misinterpret it in context given that it follows "Etty tried to replicate its success by painting nude figures", and mangled phrasing like "specialise in artwork primarily featuring people in a state of nudity" just makes it harder to read.
  • "Following the exhibition of Cleopatra..." -- Should the shortening of The Arrival of Cleopatra in Cilicia receive itals? If the painting was known as simply "Cleopatra" this should also feature in the parenthesis, no?
  • Paintings at this time didn't have titles, which were a Pre-Raphaelite invention in the late 1840s. There is no "right" and "wrong" title for Cleopatra, just various names by which it was known. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The painting shows the stages of courtship as described by Milton" -- New para, new full title. I've noticed you've done the same elsewhere.
  • I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here; if it's that each time it's mentioned for the first time in a paragraph The World Before the Flood needs to be written out in full, I'd strongly disagree with that. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, that is not what I meant; for instance: "The World Before the Flood is strongly influenced by A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan (1632–33) by Nicolas Poussin" speaks of two paintings, this one, and A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan. The next para then starts with: "The painting...".
  • Ah, I'm with you. I've changed the second occurrence to "Etty's painting", to avoid having two successive paragraphs start with "The World Before the Flood"
  • "grave" -- what do the quote marks add to this?
  • To indicate that I'm using this archaic terminology because it's the term used by Milton, and that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "As Milton considers" or something similar then. As I've said elsewhere, unattributed quotes are most unhelpful. CassiantoTalk 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I've removed that altogether, as we already have Milton's text running alongside here so it's superfluous. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Up to here, more to come... CassiantoTalk 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • I guess I'll add my voice asking for a slight rewording of " Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude". The issue is unintended humor.
  • How about "the first British artist to specialise in paintings of nudes"? ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the reaction of uneducated audiences to these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century.": I have a slight preference for "and these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century." Most readers will get what you're saying, but some won't, and a misreading would be unfortunate.
  • The issue was specifically concerns about the reactions of the uneducated lower classes to paintings on public display—Artists and connoisseurs were generally trusted to approach images of the undraped figure with contemplative composure but audiences uneducated in the intricacies of art criticism tended to be regarded with suspicion if you want chapter-and-verse. (The definition of "obscenity" in English law is based on whether it has the potential to corrupt its audience, rather than on what's depicted; up until 1959 the social class of potential audiences was taken into account when deciding whether something was appropriate for distribution.) Realistically, someone demanding a citation for "the English assume that anyone from a different background to themselves isn't to be trusted" is right up there with this guy. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "[35]),[36]", "[35]),[27]": Reference formats aren't my thing, so I won't comment other than to say I don't usually see them written this way.
  • The MOS editors seem to change the preferred placement of citations more often than they change their underwear, but I think that's the current approved format when one citation supports the comment in parentheses, and the other supports the surrounding statement. Moving the [36] and [27] to the immediate end of the statement they support rather than after the first succeeding punctuation mark will mean a footnote appearing before punctuation, which I'm given to understand means the world coming to an end. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I have read through the article and found very few issues. All the content is nicely referenced but I'm afraid I have not checked any of the sources themselves.

  • Composition:
    • The text refers to "early versions" and the caption to "preparatory sketches", but I only noticed a mention of the study at York. Checking again from the top, I see "worked through various configurations for the characters in the painting before settling on his final design" earlier in the Subject section. I would like to see a sentence or two about what other studies are extant or mentioned in sources (Burnage 2011b or whatever). For example, were they drawings or paintings of individual characters or groups, or other sketches of the whole composition? Do we have any idea how long he worked on it?
Other than the two versions shown here there's nothing to say about any of them; literally all that has been written about the preparatory sketches is pencil 8910×715, on folded envelope, small sketches for this composition. Regarding how long it took to paint, there's no way of knowing as he didn't keep notes and was so pathologically shy we don't have any accounts from visitors to his studio of what he was working on. His paintings usually took three days to complete once he got started on the final version (one day inking outlines, one day painting, one day glazing and overpainting) but for his showpiece paintings could take anything up to a couple of years. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. How about changing "In early versions the right-most..." to "In the study and other preparatory sketches, the right-most..."? I think that would prevent the "what other versions?" question. --Mirokado (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I've amended it to "In Etty's oil sketch and in preliminary drawings the right-most…" which ought to address it. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception:
    • Please check my copyedit to The Athenaeum link
Yes, you're right—that one slipped through. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Support (assuming sensible responses to the above!) --Mirokado (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No further issues from my point of view. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

As with the above review, my comments are mainly in the way of small quibbles:

  • Lead: I'd delete "which greatly pleased Etty", not that I doubt he was pleased, but the observation doesn't seem leadworthy.
  • Removed from the lead, although I think it should remain in the body text; there is some significance to the fact that it was bought by a member of the aristocracy and not northern new-money (who at the time were the main market for experimental art, as they didn't have the public-school background and expectations of what Great Art was supposed to look like). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Background:
  • The words "in painting" in the second para seem unnecessary.
  • Agreed—per my comment to Cassianto above, I try to vary this "background bio" part slightly on each article in the awareness that someone working through this series is going to read what's essentially the same story 14 times, so glitches slip in. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Again a small quibble, but the words "nude" or "nudity" appear six times in the final paragraph, and I feel that a reduction by a couple would help the prose – for example "distribution of such material"; "portraits of unclothed males" (just suggestions).
  • Does that work? Nude is a specific term of art for this type of painting, so I can't really get rid of it any further. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Subject:
  • "Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam, Michael shows Adam the world after..." Some awkward repetition in that construction. Suggest: "Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam is the world after..."
  • Yes, that works. This paragraph is tricky, as Adam's vision in Paradise Lost is of events which are in our past but in his future. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure from Genesis 6 that it was the taking of wives that so excited the wrath of God against man that he decided to destroy his creation. After all, there had been rather a lot of wife-taking in the previous chapter, which recounts the ten generations from Adam to Noah. Rather, it seems, successive generations became over-mighty and corrupt, so that "every imagination of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually", and God decided to wipe them out. (Gen. 6:4–7)
  • I don't know—looking at Genesis 6, it does seem fairly explicit that the sequence of events is "taking wives", "bearing children", "wickedness of man is great", "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth". Our own Genesis flood narrative article seems to concur with this (while I'm normally leery about taking Wikipedia articles seriously, I'd assume the key Christianity articles accurately reflect current thinking as there are so many people who'd jump on any mistake.) ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Composition:
  • Is it really accurate to say, in the caption, that Etty "reused" the figure of the seated black soldier or, in the text, that this figure had "previously appeared" in the earlier painting? The figures have similarities, but there are distinct differences in posture; one is seated, the other kneeling or possibly climbing aboard the barge.
  • Farr (writing in the 1950s) describes him as "one of the negro warriors first seen in the Cleopatra"; for (I hope) obvious reason this is a case where I don't consider it appropriate to use the original wording. If you consider it problematic it can be removed, as it's tangential at best
  • You say that Etty did not give the picture a title. Can you say who gave it the title "The World Before the Flood", and when? (If I overlooked this information in the article, I'm sorry)
  • I've done some digging in the full catalogue, and there's no date given for the first use of The World Before the Flood as a title. Looking through catalogues for the exhibitions at which it was shown, the earliest reference I can find to this name is at the 1862 International Exhibition; I've added a note to this effect (and broken my longstanding dislike of inserting Google Books links, as this is one case where I can imagine people wanting to check for themselves). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception: No issues
  • Legacy
  • The quoted letter does not form part of "legacy", and I am uncertain whether that is indeed the best title for this section, as there is little in it that might be described as the legacy of this work. I don't gather that the painting had any lasting influence on later painters, which is generally what the word "legacy" implies. What this section really is is the painting's "later history"; whether that's a sexy enough title, I don't know.
  • Yes, that's fine—I tend to use "Legacy" as a default section heading for the "what happened afterwards" final section of articles, but I have no attachment to the term. Changed. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible, perhaps by way of a footnote, to indicate the likely present value of the painting, which I'm sure would make an interesting comparison with the lowly figures quoted in the final paragraph?
  • Not easily, Etty's figure studies come up for sale fairly frequently (generally at around £5000–£10,000 apiece), but almost all his history paintings are in the hands of public institutions so comparable works rarely come on the market. Flipping through auction sites, the most comparable piece I can find which has recently changed hands is A Bacchanalian Revel, which sold for £37,250 in 2009; were this to come on the market it could go for anything from £10,000 to £200,000 depending on who was bidding. Victorian art prices are notoriously volatile (it's not that long since Flaming June changed hands for £50), and tend to reflect whatever the last exhibition at the Tate happened to be, and whether it's a piece Andrew Lloyd Webber needs to fill in a gap in his collection—I'd be quite reluctant to put a price on it in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

An excellent short piece. I look forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Support: Happy with all responses, no further adjustments needed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks—sorry for the delay in replying ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor Swift[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC) and IndianBio

This article is about Taylor Swift, one of the most popular celebrities on Earth, a very unique songwriter (who only writers about her exes) and a not-so good singer. In 2012 the article became a GA but was delisted last year due to length and prose issues. I trimmed it down significantly (with the help of co-nommer) and also gave it a little bit of expansion - about 18k bytes. It underwent a highly profitable peer review with a thorough review from Wehwalt. I leave it up to you reviewers to decide whether or not it is ready for the bronze star. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Support per my peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed. The only one that worries me is this one, which has personality rights warning, although it appears to be free for public use.
  • Regarding the captions, can you modify some of them to read more unifying? Some suggestions bellow:
Pictured in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010→Swift performing in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010
link the Speak Now World Tour in 2012
Swift's 1989 World Tour grossed $250 million, becoming one of the highest grossing tours of all time→Swift at The 1989 World Tour, which grossed $250 million and became one of the highest grossing tours of all time
Swift in 2009→Swift at the 2009 Cavendish Beach Music Festival in Prince Edward Island, Canada
  • Notifying that I made suggestion on the prose during the peer review, and all of them were resolved.--Retrohead (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Have acted on on your suggestions. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Another thing not related to the images. Please check the external links in the box on the upper right. You'll find some references in green indicating some links need to be updated. The ones in red are dead and need to be replaced. This was probably going to be mentioned in the source review, but it is better to be fixed now.--Retrohead (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Redirects are very common to occur; one particular source titled "You Belong With Me" was updated not long ago and yet again it needs fixing. I tried to 'fix' those anyway with checklinks, but it's not seem to work. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Not the redirects, I'm talking about the urls of the references. For example, ref 7 has changed its url and I've updated it. You need to update the remaining links that appear in green and red. Once updated, the software will not remove them from the list.--Retrohead (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Retrohead: I am also talking about the sources - sources redirect. I tried to fix most of them, but many of them are still appearing in green. Redirects are common. Don't think they need to be changed, unless the link dies. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, the links seem fine now. Good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Support

Looks pretty good. Surprised at how few reviews there are, but I guess most Wikipedians were brought up on Frank Sinatra. Anyhow, some points, not requiring action:

  • Is one episode of CSI worth mentioning in the lead?
  • My favourite line in the article is "Swift was also honored by the Association with a special Pinnacle Award for "unique" levels of success, becoming the second recipient after Garth Brooks"
  • "Trenchfoot" is actually two words, but the quote matches the source. Meh.

Well done! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. - FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Secretariat (horse)[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) User:Jlvsclrk talk

This article is about the famous racehorse Secretariat, Triple Crown winner and one of the finest racehorses in history. This is a high-importance article for WikiProject Horse racing and one that has has a substantial amount of work put in by many editors, not just the nominators. We welcome a comprehensive review for an article on a topic important to the project. Thank you. Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by White Arabian Filly[edit]

I don't think I've ever made more than one or two minor edits here, so I should be able to review neutrally. I have a few comments, some of them sort of piddly:

  • The very first sentence in the lead is sort of a run-on, listing half the things he ever did. Is there a way to split it up?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • The last line in the lead, the one about him being honored many years after his death, reads in a promotional way to me.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk, and a few further tweaks by MTBW
  • The background section uses an awful lot of parentheses, and some of the details, like the mares sent to be bred, can go outside parentheses.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk (minor additional ce by MTBW)
  • On Penny Chenery's quote in the Whitney Stakes section, the closing quote mark is missing.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • Is there a reason why it's written "honoured" in the part about the Canadian International? (Was it done intentionally?)
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think it would look better for the part about the heart weight to say, "(8.5 lbs, or 3.9 kgs)" instead of double parentheses around the kilograms, which looks clunky.
    Can't be helped, the {{convert}} template does that. --MTBW
  • Where it says Secretariat's birthplace is on the NRHP, I guess that means the whole farm The Meadow, but the way it's written now it sounds sort of like the exact spot is what's on the NRHP.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    • I chopped the first sentence in two - LMK if it's now too choppy. In what's now the second sentence, I tried to come up with something better than "greatest races of all time" but that's at least supported in the article already. LMK if I should rework further.
    • Think I got the rest of them Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • It's fine now; hopefully we can get more reviews and get it to FA pretty soon. I'm ready to support it! White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the anatomy photo
    FIXED by MTBW (large enough? It's 1.5x can go bigger if needed)
  • Statue caption should end in a period
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • File:Owner_Meadow_Stable.svg: can we include a source in the description to verify the accuracy of the design?
    Source added [1]. --MTBW
  • File:1973_Kentucky_Derby_Secretariat.jpg: could you add something to the description about point 2, and what do you mean by "connections"? Same with File:Secretariat_1973_Preakness_Winners_Circle.jpg, and having two non-free images with the exact same rationale reduces the justification for including them - suggest expanding or reframing
    "Connections" are the people associated with the horse. I will tweak that phrasing at the image page. I also changed the rationale for the Kentucky Derby image, does that improve matters? —MTBW
  • File:Secretariat_statue.jpg: what is the copyright status of the photo, and are we sure about the copyright expiration? Skeaping seems to have made several later copies of the statue.
    The base of the statue itself says "1974" in the image, so the original work is within the change in the law, but the statue is a 1988 copy source of the 1974 original. As Jlvsclrk stated, s/he took the image. We could replace it with the Saratoga image, but it would be nice if we could keep the Belmont one, because that's the most famous version and a better photo. Given that we are dealing with a 1988 copy of a 1974 original statue, I am going to ping Wehwalt for his take on how we handle a copy where the original is in the public domain. —MTBW

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    • I'm hoping Montanabw can deal with 1, 3, 4. I fixed 2. re 5 - the photo was taken by me and is public domain. I'm sure I don't understand American copyright law on the statue itself but the original was produced in 1974 and is now at the Hall of Fame. The version in the picture is a replica installed in 1988 as noted in the article. I have a picture of the original too, but it doesn't have the blanket of carnations they place on Belmont Day. The original is one of the few objects at the Hall of Fame that you're allowed to photograph so I'm pretty sure it's fine. Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I answered further questions, let us know if there are further fixes! Thanks everyone for your reviews. Nikkimaria, White Arabian Filly, pinging you Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jlvsclrk: Could you add whichever of {{CC-0}} or {{PD-self}} you prefer to the photo? Montana, could you add a quick statement re:point 2 on the two screenshots? That will just leave the copyright expiration issue, which is complicated by the "republication". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think montanabw originally suggested that particular license because of the subject matter. Assuming the statue is fair game, I've changed the license to self|cc-by-sa-4.0 (share alike). Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I added the Point 2 rationale to the screenshots, had to tweak the templates a little to make it appear (there was a "commercial" parameter on the images, but it wasn't showing up). On the Secretariat statue, Jlvsclrk added an appropriate photographer's release, but the copyright on the statue itself is held by the artist and I think it's PD-no-notice, so I re-added that template as well, I think we need both. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
We would need tags for both the photo and the statue, yes. I'm not sure though that PD-no-notice is the appropriate tag, and would like to hear from Wehwalt or others on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was published in 1974, I guess the question is, is there a copyright notice on the statue? If there is not, the tag is good, if there is, and it is proper, you're out of luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no copyright notice on the statue. Below the sculptor's name and date on the base of the statue is one more line, cut off in my image, that reads "Gift of Paul Mellon to the National Museum of Racing at Saratoga". Wehwalt, does the fact that the statue in question is a copy (installed at Belmont in 1988, produced who knows when) affect matters, or is it the date of the original (or the mold with which both copies were created I suppose) that matters? Just want to be sure! Jlvsclrk (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I shouldn't think so, if they are exact copies. It's original publication before 1978 without a copyright notice that creates the lack of a copyright. Are we confident the original lacks a copyright notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's a link to a picture that shows the full statue - no copyright notice. (Another pic showing the reverse angle, no notice on it either. Original has identical wording. Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, then I think the tag is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, we'll go with that then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Support I had a fair number of comments at the peer review and did some editing myself. Seems an excellent article on a significant figure, both in the sports world and culturally. One of the earliest sports events I remember watching was the Belmont that year. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Support as the GA reviewer. It is very well-written, and worthy of being a FA. The GA review was a bit more stringent than customary but whatever needed tweaking beyond that appears to have been handled. After GA promotion, it went through yet another review by Wehwalt. If it needed any further tweaking, I figured it might be in the citations images but it appears Nikkimaria did a good job with that part of the review as she so often does. Atsme📞📧 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Er... Atsme, I looked at images and not citations here, is that what you meant? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies. My brain tripped over an archived memory. Atsme📞📧 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It's well-written. A few comments on the lead and first few sections (disclosure: the nominator is a fellow member of the Signpost board).

  • Being new to this topic, I'm unused to seeing "he" and "who" used to refer to the horse; I guess so.
    Standard in the horse world
  • Isn't it an indictment on the Foundation's engeering and products division that we still have to put up with ugly, clunky, large fractions in inline text. I suppose the guideline for conversion to international units doesn't apply (?). There are inches in the table, unconverted.
    I was wondering about that. FIXED by Jlvsclrk
    • The {{frac}} template sometimes helps. MTBW
  • "United States" should definitely not be linked. "$" is linked ... that's not normal, and as a reader I'd rather know that it's "US$" than have to hover over the $ to find out. Also, the dollar symbol hangs below the line.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "possessed" ... "had" wouldn't do?
    "had" just feels like a weak verb to me. Will change if it bothers you but "possessed" just seems more appropriate to me. *shrug*
  • "In order to"—please, "To".
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "wind up with" ... slightly informal, and twice in a sentence.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think MOS wants "In spring 1989", and "fall 1969".
    that really doesn't scan right to me. Could replace "the spring of 1969" with the "the 1969 breeding season" if that reads better.
  • as-yet-unborn
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "and the as-yet unborn 1970 foal of Somethingroyal; the latter foal turned out to be Secretariat"—could it be just ", which turned out ..."?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "nursed" means "suckled", I guess.
    Yes. It's also a widely used term in the horse business. ("Stands and nurses" is often the point at which stud fees become payable)
    • And in US English generally, we nurse our human babies too. --MTBW
  • "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes.
    first part FIXED by Jlvsclrk. Second part - not sure what the error is
  • "Chenery got her first look at the foal and made a one word entry in her notebook:"—maybe, but it's on the informal edge of the envelope, I think. Hyphen. "Chenery first saw the foal and made a one-word entry in her notebook:"?
    Did you mean it would be better if we replaced the colon with a hyphen?
  • Autumn, or fall? We have both.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "the latter"—isn't that applicable where there are two items? "the last"?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

Tony (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

see interspersed comments above. Should we also add meters when mentioning race distances? Do you think 9.5 furlongs reads better than 1 316 miles? As a North American horse racing fan, I find the former odd, but if it's easier for non-horseracing people to understand, I'm all for it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • We have the conversion table, we do a three-way conversion of {{hands}}. We could add 9.5 furlongs 1 316 miles (1.9 km) too if someone wants us to, but there does become a point at which it is pretty clunky. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I added a "conversion of racing distances" chart (based on the one in the American Pharoah article) for the racing statistics section.
  • @Tony1:: Have all your concerns been addressed? Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • For the upper sections, yes. I'm unsure about conversion rules and conventions, but was just pointing it out. "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." — "not sure what the error is" ... more words than necessary. Tony (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Hi Tony, I did your suggested wording change - agree it reads better. My question was on the later part of the bullet where you said "Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes." That's where I'm not sure what the error is - the comma I see is followed by a 'he said' construction. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Jlv, MOS gives this example: "Fish are friends, not food", said Bruce., and says it's irrespective of the variety of English. Tony (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Huh, I've been doing this wrong for my entire life. Spot checking, so are most of the sources. Learn something every day. Will fix this and a few other uses in the article. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

After a gap of several months, I'm making a modest return to FAC with this account of Prokofiev's short but brilliant Kijé music, first written to accompany a film, then made into an orchestral suite. The music has been further adapted into multiple forms, and heard so often that most people know bits of it without being able to identify what it is. Special thanks to Wehwalt, and to the sadly retired Tim riley, for their unofficial peer reviewing, and to User:Profbounds for creating the musical examples. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Support had my say at the unofficial peer review. I join in the sentiments expressed above re Tim.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Support I've carried out a few minor formatting errors and read as I went. A fine article and one, I should imagine, that'll be widely visited during the festive season in a few months, thanks to Troika. CassiantoTalk 07:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Support It's a lovely piece of work. --John (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

My thanks to you all. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:Kije1934.jpg: what is the original source?
  • File:Kije1934.jpg is an offcut from File:Kije.jpg. In that file's page, the link to the original source now provides irrelevant information. I have tried searching for the original link through Wayback, without success. What further steps should I take? Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What is the copyright status of the music itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The music examples were created by Profbounds, using a system which is quite impenetrable to me. But I imagine that these short extracts are in the same category as the brief prose quotations that are commonly found in WP articles, and are independent from any copyright that exists over the music itself.
  • (Later) I have discussed the question of copyright with Profbounds, who says: "I believe that the examples might constitute "fair use" under the "Amount and Substantiality" factor. The examples are fragments of the complete score and are further removed from the original context because they are not photocopied from the score. The piano midi sound file is, also, removed from the orchestral timbre associated with the original." This view is broadly in line with my own, concerning brief quotations. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria:: Could you revisit and comment in the light of the above? Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    The "quotations" are fine. For the film poster, I wonder if you have a source confirming authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think this does that. I have altered the source details in the File:Kije.jpg file to link to this source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from User:Syek88[edit]

Support
I only have only a few small suggestions, the fourth and fifth being of very little significance. First, the score excerpt of the fanfare should have a ritardando and a smorzando. Each is important, reinforcing the "distant" and "mournful" nature of it. Second, it might be worth saying that the optional baritone part appears not only in the Romance but in the Troika. I'm basing this on the Ashkenazy recording later mentioned. Jaffe's programme note also mentions the Troika having been written as a song (not just based on a traditional Hussar song). Third, and speaking of the Troika, I don't think that it is right to say that the song theme "interrupts" the "ride". The theme is an integral part of the "ride", right from the third bar of the quicker section. If there are interruptions, they come from elsewhere, like the little trombone interlude. Fourth, I'd suggest placing the excerpt from the Romance an octave higher, which is how it first appears, but it certainly does appear later in the G-below-middle-C register. Fifth, in the image caption, "Boston Opera House" should probably be "The Boston Opera House". Syek88 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for these points.
  • As explained above, the music excerpts were placed by another editor. I don't know the system he's used, but I can ask him if he will deal with this point.
  • I have dealt with the two issues you raise concerning the Troika
  • I don't know how to raise the Romance excerpt by an octave, but will enquire.
  • User:Profbounds has subsequently commented as follows: "Although it appears to be written an octave higher, because it is scored for Contrabasso it will sound an octave lower than scored. I have notated it in the sounding octave, which also matches the octave of the singer in the original version. Notating it an octave higher would match the look in the score but not the actual sounding octave." Thus, I am inclined to leave the example as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Caption altered as requested. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I am very happy to support. Syek88 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I am most grateful for your helpful comments and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

This will be in fits and starts, but a couple of thoughts on the sources:

  • Books: you have some US states as "Conn" and others as "CA"; for some (eg. New Haven, Boston, Honolulu, Berkeley), there is no state.
  • Newspapers: You have two online newspaper stories, one with an access date, one without

More to follow – Gavin (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Both these points addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Expatriate
  • "western Europe or Western Europe?
  • I prefer the former, since "Western Europe" tends to suggest an officially recognised geographic area.Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Film music
  • "prolific career" – sounds a bit like editorialising
  • Well, he wrote 35 film scores, so I think "prolific career as a composer of film sound-tracks" is probably factual. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Composition
  • The "Above all, it must be melodious..." quote doesn't have closing quote marks

Support – regardless of the very minor points above, with which I shall leave you to decide whether to take action. Thanks Brian. – Gavin (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence and support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

I think we still need a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistency cited with the following exceptions:

  • The Gable source has a . after the CT in a way inconsistent with the other state abbreviations which are all the standard postal abbreviations. (I'm offline or would just remove it)
  • I would standardise ISBNs at 13 digits since most seem to be.
  • I might argue that Boston is at least as prominent as Oxford to go without disambiguation, but there's enough tea in the harbour already.
  • That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleveland Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a less controversial half dollar than Thomas G. Melish's other venture, the Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar, which commemorated an anniversary that the government knew didn't exist. Thanks to the intervention of Congress, which was getting fed up with commemorative coin abuses, it was a fairly legitimate coin, and isn't that rare today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton[edit]

Minor prose quibbles:

Lead
  • "Brenda Putnam designed the coin" – presumably this refers to the latter of the coins just mentioned?
  • "to prevent repetition of past abuses" - a (very) brief indication of their nature, and by whom, would be helpful.
Background
  • "In 1796, he set out a townsite along Lake Erie, that came to bear his name" – as [resently punctuated the sense is that the lake rather than the townsite came to bear his name.
  • "to commemorate an anniversary that did not exist." This wording may be a little confusing; the Cincinnati May Festival existed, and had an anniversary in 1936 – the 63rd by my reckoning. So what was the deception, if that's the right word?
Legislation
  • Second sentence: suggest insert "both" after "honor", to clarify
  • "The bill was reported out of committee..." What does this mean, in layman's language?
  • "drastically amended" becomes "a new version" later. Not quite the same thing.
The new version was the amended bill. I think it can stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Preparation
  • "by a 1921 executive order by President Warren G. Harding" – perhaps change the first "by" to "in"?
Design
  • I'm not sure about this use of "transfixed", the secondary meaning of which generally involves something being pierced rather than merely marked, as is the case here.
  • The word "she" in the final line is unnecessary
Production etc
  • No issues here

All easily resolved – look forward to adding support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. With the exception of the one matter above, I've done more or less as you've suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Refs 11, 14 and 16: same source, but 14 has slightly different format.

No other sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are not the same document, but are from different stages of the legislation. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: all issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for the reviews and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

CMLL World Welterweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  01:40, 15 September 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 and CMLL World Middleweight Championship articles which were recently promoted to FA. I have taken all input from those FACs, plus various GANs, FLCs and FACs I've done on Mexican wrestling championships to hopefully produce a high-quality article worthy of the Feature Article status. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the debut single by M2M, which was also the lead single from the Pokémon: The First Movie soundtrack. Article passed GA, has been peer reviewed and has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn[edit]

  • Comment ah, one of the least-guilty "guilty pleasures". This is among my favorite late-90s pop songs, along with "Steal My Sunshine". Here are my thoughts on a first run-through of the article:
  • I see that genre was removed from the infobox with this edit. I think what was there, bubblegum pop, is basically self-evident, but it's surprisingly tricky to pin down a source that uses the word "bubblegum" — a few (this and that) call the band bubblegum, in passing, but not the song itself. But this article at Stereogum, while not about the band, does directly call the song "bubblegum", so there you go. I'd include it in the article body, and then you can put it in the infobox no problem.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I also came across this NY Times article that could be used — you may have already seen it and dismissed it, since there's not a lot there not said elsewhere, but it's worth a look.
Thanks for pointing it out but I don't think i'll use it. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sure about putting two critics' quotes in the lead. It's beautiful to see the famously cranky Christgau call M2M's music "impossibly touching," but still, he's talking there about their songs generally, not "Don't Say You Love Me" in particular. I'd consider cutting them.
I've removed Christgau's comments and left the other one. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The sample box caption talks about the lyrics, but not any traits of the sampled recording. You don't need a sample to discuss just the lyrics; fair use of the sample in fact requires discussion/commentary on the portion from the recording sampled. I'd reword the sample caption to talk about the style of the music and the lyrics.
Hmm after reading through the article the best thing I can think of to add is part of the review from Michael Paoletta saying how good the harmonisation is in the song. Do you think something like that would work? And if not, do you have another suggestion? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to put something together while I incorporate the music-sheet info. —BLZ · talk 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking of, there's almost no discussion of the music itself — only the lyrics. You can glean some basic but useful facts from the officially licensed sheet music (tempo/bpm, what key it's in, the fact that iirc there's a key change), and the rest would likely be a description of genre and production style.
Brandt Luke Zorn: I don't know how to read a music sheet. So this sheet says the song is 100 beats per minute, is that right? What key does the sheet say it's in? Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's 100bpm. The key is either E major or C sharp minor... I could probably figure it out if you, uh, "give me some time". If you buy the digital copy of the sheet music (at $5.50 it's not totally unreasonable), you can send me a copy via email (I've enabled the emailing feature). I'll happily interpret it and draft up a solid paragraph. The music theory doesn't have to be much more in-depth than what you could find in "Under the Bridge", "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or my own "Today", but I do think a song article needs to have some music-theory info where it's available (and since licensed sheet music exists, it is available here.) —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Every link in a source should be archived using archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl=no (unless the link actually is dead, of course). I think pre-emptively archiving all source links should be required in FAs because it improves the future reliability of the sourcing and saves a lot of time if links die.
I've archived all the URLs except the google book sources and some of the sources used for charting, which have been formatted in a manner which won't let me add the archiving parameters. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
That's perfect. Sources that were originally print don't really need the same type of backup, since in a way the user is lucky enough to be able to access scans online in the first place. —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed a couple points and will address the others shortly. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've now added the basic information from the sheet music to the article. You'll notice I also slipped in a new source that I came across: shockingly, someone in Oslo did their Ph.D thesis in musicology about M2M. I checked Wikipedia's sourcing policy to make sure citing to a thesis is OK, and in this case it seems appropriate; although caution should be taken with theses, they say that it's better if a thesis has been cited by others, and sure enough this one already has been cited, despite being only two years old and in the narrow field of scholarly pop-music analysis. I'm going to add a few more things that I think are useful from that thesis, but for now I have to run and do something IRL. —BLZ · talk 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, i'm really impressed with your work (and both amazed and fascinated to find out about this thesis!) Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I've added what elements of the composition and thesis I thought were worth adding, as well as bringing in what there was in the sources about genre. You've done an excellent job with this article. I'm satisfied that this meets FA criteria. Incidentally, I've recently found a site called archive.is which is extremely useful and seems to work for some URLs that archive.org won't save. It should work for at least some of the links that didn't work earlier. —BLZ · talk 05:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

Support

Everything looks good. The article is of FA standard. All images have appropriate licences (two are Fair Use). Consider moving the image of Raven across to the right. I corrected one typo in the text. A minor quibble is that my Australian version of Shades of Purple has The Feeling is Gone as track 14. Anyhow, well done. (As a passing note, I saw M2M at EPCOT in 2000.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7. That's interesting about the Australia version; despited being an Australian myself I only have a digital copy of the album which contains the standard 13 tracks. Do you think I should add this information about the Australian version in brackets? The American version of the album is already used as a source for one thing; i'm guessing I might need to know serial numbers of something about the Australia version to differentiate it if I used it as a source, or would simply saying it's the Australia version in the reference be enough information do you think? I'm so jealous you got to see M2M at EPCOT. Haha you didn't happen to take any photos did you? Wikipedia is lacking a free image of both members of M2M together at all. Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I have this version. I think going into this would be drifting off-topic here (although it should be noted in the Shades of Purple article!) I suggest instead just changing the text to say "which were left off the U.S. version of the album." It was pure coincidence that I happened to be there at the time. As for photos, alas, Hawkeye7 is not a photographer, I'm afraid. (I do recall that they sang the album version.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

European hare[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk); Chiswick Chap; Cwmhiraeth 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the European hare, a well-known and widespread mammal native to western Eurasia. It is the quintessential Lepus species and is known for its active breeding behavior; the source of the term "mad as a March hare". This article was at GA for a while and we recently expanded on it and copyedited it. We now feel its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

The following references contain dead links: 23 to Acta Veterinaria Brno, 36 to Ecology, 54 to Lincolnshire Echo, 56 to The History of English Cookery, 58 and 59 to The British Food Trust. -Aa77zz (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:, I'll need you for the ones on cooked hare. And Aa77zz, 36 works for me. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
All done, but they were 55, 57, and 58. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed 36. These still don't work for me - I'm in London. Obviously the numbers will change if references are added or deleted:
  • 58 "Jugged". The Great British Kitchen. The British Food Trust.  - gives a "This Account has been suspended" message
  • 59 "Recipes: Game: Jugged Hare". The Great British Kitchen. The British Food Trust.  - gives a "This Account has been suspended" message
Also, as web sources, these would require access-dates. -Aa77zz (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Removed both, used Davidson 2014 instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference 11 Palacios et al 2004. This source is obscure and thus unsuitable here. The genetic structure of the population in Cantabria seems rather specialised and I suggest deleting the sentence altogether. The genetic distinctiveness of different populations of Lepus europaeus is mentioned in:

  • Estonba, A.; Solís, A.; Iriondo, M.; Sanz-Martín, M.J.; Pérez-Suárez, G.; Markov, F.; Palacios, F. (2006). "The genetic distinctiveness of the three Iberian hare species: Lepus europaeus, L. granatensis, and L. castroviejoi". Mammalian Biology. 71 (1): 52–59. doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2005.08.010.  Available from: Researchgate

There is also a specialised 2014 article: Sanz-Martin et al Genetic Structure of Brown and Iberian Hare Populations in Northern Iberia: Implications for Conservation of Genetic Diversity doi:10.1002/jwmg.7 -Aa77zz (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed. The last paper you brought up is about translocations which are mentioned elsewhere in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

More:

  • The two references at the end of the first paragraph of the Taxonomy section only supported the last sentence. I've added two additional references but references are needed to support: Lepus is Latin for hare and the features distinguishing the genus Lepus from other leporids. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The cite got mixed up. The statement about Lepus is in parentheses and is commonly known and not disputed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses above. More comments:

  • A birth weight of 100g seems low. Kurta (1995) p104 gives 130g while Chapman and Flux (1990) give an average of 123g (range 100g-165g).
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that young leverets disperse during the day and come together in the evening to suckle. See: Broekhuizen, S.; Maaskamp, F. (1980). "Behaviour of does and leverets of the European hare (Lepus europaeus) while nursing". Journal of Zoology (London). 191 (4): 487–501. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1980.tb01480.x. 
Done. @Cwmhiraeth: can you do the others? LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that predation by felids is significant. The cited source - the Animal Diversity site (currently ref 21) lists wild cats (Felis silvestris). These aren't common and probably don't share the same habitat. On the other hand a young leveret would make a fine meal for a stoat.
I'm sure you're right, but I couldn't find anything specific to the European hare. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The anonymous source Ref 16 (Natural History Collections University of Edinburgh) is a poor source for the teeth. Ideally sources used in this article should contain inline references to the primary literature. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

More:

  • Reference 24 Ferracioli, P. et al. (2009) is too specialized and also unsuitable. It is an article in Portuguese from the proceedings of a conference. It is currently online but the printed version would be tricky to find. From the title the article is about hares in the Brazilian town of Londrina. For the distribution of European hares in South America there is: Bonino, N.; Cossíos, D.; Menegheti, J. (2010). "Dispersal of the European hare, Lepus europaeus in South America". Folia Zoological. 59 (1): 9–15.  A scan is available from Reseachgate and I can access it here -Aa77zz (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm back. I'm sorry for the delay in completing my review.

  • The figures for the length and weight are taken from Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to the World's Wildlife. I can see the brief article here. This isn't an ideal source for this data.
I have adjusted the length and weight, using a different source which has a narrower range. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The above source gives the weight range as 2.5-7kg. The upper limit seems too large. A 2014 study of 528 hares shot in Poland reported weights in the range 3.42 to 4.32 kg. A 2009 study of 648 trapped hares reported weights in the range of 2.1 to 5.0kg. A Swedish study published in 1980 indicates a weight range of 3 to 5.1kg (see Figs 2 and 3). From these articles a range of 2.5 to 5kg would seem likely - but you need a suitable secondary source. (the IUCN article cites Macdonald and Barrett 1993 - Collins Field Guide: Mammals of Britain and Europe - but there is no online access and I'm far from a suitable library) Aa77zz (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Thank you for the rapid responses to my queries. Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Finally a living animal! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • "precocial young" Explain in parenthesis?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "up to 30 subspecies of European hare have been classified" Have been named/described? Classified seems a bit vague.
Described it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Any cladograms to show?
This paper contains a few but L. europaeus was not sampled. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "like other members of the family Leporidae (hares and rabbits)" Move that info up to when Leporidae is mentioned first in taxonomy.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "There is a diastema" Explain gap/space.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "They are also negatively affected by large open fields with few hedges, ditches and permanent cover areas, because these habitats supply the varied diet they require." I'm not sure I understad this sentence. Or maybe I just read it wrong, I guess it is the lack of "hedges, ditches and permanent cover areas" that is the problem. But I was confused as to whether the last "these" referred to "open fields" or "few hedges etc.", so maybe it cold be clearer?
Rearranged sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "greater mortality of leverets." Never read that last term before, perhaps explain what it means? I see you do it later on, so should just be moved up.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "During daytime, a hare hides in a depression" In the ground?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "They sometimes eat their own green, faecal pellets to recover proteins and vitamins" Add that this is because it is not fully digested?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "both polygynous" Explain.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Fox and inbreeding are overlinked.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Young hares, known as leverets" Already explained by this point (food section).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is related to and looks very similar to the European rabbit" Only stated in the intro.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "which is in the same family but in a different genus." Seems like too much detail for the intro, and isn't even stated this specifically in the article body.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The European hare is larger than the European rabbit, and has longer ears and more powerful hind limbs." Why so much comparison with the European rabbit in the intro compared to the article body? This specie sis described without having to be compared to the rabbit under description, should be so in the intro.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support from Jim Great stuff, even my favourite quibble (are there any parasites?) has been foreseen. Just to show I've read it, note that the refs at the very end of "Food and hunting" are not in numerical order Jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, I was thinking of you while I was looking for parasites! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- Did I miss image and source reviews above? If not, pls list at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Aries (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Aries is the ninth studio album by Mexican singer Luis Miguel. While there were some reserves about the album by critics, I am particularly fond of the early-90's dance-pop music even if they are cheesy. This is my first article about an album by Luis Miguel that is not a Romance-themed album. Previously, I have contributed to make Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FAs and now I am nominating this article to FA after getting a peer review done by Carbrera. I look forward to your feedback! Erick (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC) The article is in quite good but there are somethings that bothered me:

Background and recording
"The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti,[1] was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]" The sentence seems quite long. I would recommend splitting it like "The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti.[1] It was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]"
"Recording began on 4 July 1992.[8]" Now this sentence feels a bit small. Maybe I am nitpicking it so don't feel like an issue.
Singles and promotion
"The album's third single, "Suave", was released in September 1993 and peaked at number nine on the Hot Latin Songs chart;[22][23] its music video was directed by Kiko Guerrero and features Miguel dancing with several women on a beach.[24][25]" Also feels like a long sentence.
Critical reception
The first paragraph looks like it lacks some wikilink like Billboard
References
Reference 4 "Burr, Ramiro (11 July 1993). "Luis Miguel meets his challenges". San Antonio Express-News. Hearst Corporation. (subscription required (help))." seems like it lacking something.
Also, I would recommend archiving some citations in case they become dead links.

Other than that, I feel the article is well written and sourced. If the issues are solved, I'll give it my support. Additionally, I would appreciate if you could provide feedback to my own FAN (which is my first one), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1, which has been quite inactive.

@Tintor2:, I believed I have addressed everything you brought up. As the last point about the reference, it's a paywall source, so it's acceptable the way it is. I don't have the album, otherwise I would've added where it was recorded on the sentence you mentioned felt too short. I'll see if I can find it online. Erick (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Magiciandude: Good work. I'll give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Montreal Laboratory[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Having written about the British and American components of the Manhattan Project, this article is about the Canadian part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. There have been no changes since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Support I could not find various issues other than the lead's first paragraph being a bit small and three references used for "They were succeeded by George Weil in November 1945." Other than that, I hope this article becomes a FA. Also I've recently made my first FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate any feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Overall, a worthy candidate.
  • Why are commonly known country-names ("Canada", "United Kingdom", "Switzerland", "Austria") linked? Why are three geographical names bunch-linked at the opening?
  • Uncomfortable switch from "United Kingdom" to "Britain" in the opening sentence. Later, I see "England". Me, I'd be using "UK" and "US", but it's up to you.
  • "The Maud Committee was uncertain as to whether this was relevant"—perhaps two words could be removed ... do you agree?
  • "although there remained a possibility that a reactor could be used to breed plutonium, which might be used in one."—"could/might have been used"?
  • "Due to American concerns about security (as many of the scientists were foreign nationals) and ..."—"as" is often a problem; I'd used "since", but here, why not just remove it altogether?
  • "Director"—MOS, CMOS, and the Oxford NHR all say to minimise unnecessary caps.
  • I guess two temporal vaguenesses are OK in the lead—"eventually" and "for a time"—presuming that they're clarified in the body of the article.
  • "in order to"? Please.

I've read through just the lead and first section. Tony (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Tony.

  1. Someone keeps linking country names. Unlinked them, and I'll keep a watch to make sure they don't come back.
  2. I have to use the future in the past tense about the plutonium. Today we know that you can breed plutonium in a reactor, and that it is fissile, and can be used in an atomic bomb. But back then neither was certain; the element had been theorised, but not yet discovered.
  3. All my sources agree that NRX was the most powerful research reactor in the world when it was started in 1947. However, they don't say what replaced it. In Canada it was superseded by NRU, which started up in 1957. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Chad Harris-Crane[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television. I have worked on this article a lot over the past year, and I believe that it is comprehensive and covers all the aspects of the FA criteria. The article has gone through the GAN and Peer Review process I would love to have this article reach the level of a FA to attract more attention for improving articles on this soap opera and LGBT characters of color. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The article looks in pretty good shape but I'll leave some things. For now the lead

"which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. Passions followed the romantic and supernatural adventures in the fictional New England coastal town of Harmony" seems unnecessary for the character. Can you replace it with something about his creation?
  • Agreed, removed this from the lead. The link is there for anyone interested in learning more about the show. I am not sure what to add to the lead about the creation of the character, but I am open to suggestions.
"Divins discussed the storyline with his gay friends and researched LGBT culture to better shape his performance. Media outlets were uncertain of the exact nature of Chad's sexual orientation, debating if he was straight, gay, or bisexual." Seems rather redundant. I mean, is there another one?
  • True, revised this by removing the redundant phrasing.

Now moving to Development

It kind of feels like there too many quotes.
  • Agree. Removed some quotes, but let me know if more should be removed.
  • Can the storylines use some references?
  • As I stated in the Peer Review, the storyline section does not require referencing according to this. It would also be extremely difficult or impossible to include references for that section as some sentences cover weeks, months, and (in some cases) years of daily, weekday episodes.
  • I don't find any notable issues with the reception.

Other than I'm satisfied with the article. By the way, I also nominated Allen Walker here. I would appreciate feedback even if he doesn't pass.

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them. Please let me know if there is anything else I can clarify or revise with the article. I will provide a review for your FAC for Allen Walker sometime in the beginning of next week if that is alright with you. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tintor2: Thank you very much for your comments again. You helped me catch a few really really silly mistakes lol. I will make sure to review your FAC in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review as requested[edit]

  • File:Chad Harris-Crane.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as it's a character from a copyrighted TV show. Source information is a bit vague, the scope of illustrating the subject of the article seems legit under WP:NFCI. I'd say it meets the WP:NFC criteria but it needs more source information.
  • Information has been updated. I did not upload the image, but I am very certain that it is a portion of a screenshot from an episode (and given the nature of the show, it would be extremely difficult to identify the episode it was taken from). Let me know if this needs to be updated further.
  • File:ChadVincentSex.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as they are characters from a copyrighted TV show. The non-free use rationale is much more detailed than in the infobox image. I have some doubts that illustrating a homosexual relationship in the show needs a non-free image, though (WP:NFCC#8) - was this scene explicitly discussed? Also, the article does indicate "mixed reviews" not "generally negative" ones as claimed in the caption.
  • Replaced "generally negative" with "mixed". I forgot to change this during the article's expansion. I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character "made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex", and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic. I completely understand if you believe it should be removed and will do so. I admittedly need to learn more about the usage of non-free images on here, so I would greatly appreciate your input.

Lead image may need ALT text, the other image has already good ALT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have responded to your comments above. I believe that I updated all of the source information for the lead image, but please let me know if this requires further clarification or expansion. I have clarified my intention for using the second image, but I could always remove it (I completely understand your point, and I understand the use of non-free images should be kept to a minimal). Also, the lead image already has an ALT text, but I can update it if you believe it is insufficient. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Going solely by WP:NFCC#8 using a shot of one of the complained-about sexual intercourse scenes seems like it would satisfy the NFC policy better, if text discussing these complained-about scenes is present in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the clarification. I do need to learn more about the NFC policy. The comments about the criticism are at the end of the final paragraph of the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have also updated the caption. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just to clarify, did this pass the image review? Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I generally do not explicitly say "passed" or "failed" when reviewing FAC images. However, you can read this as a) the first image is OK and b) the second one probably isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the reply. So just to be absolutely clear, do you think it would be best to remove the second image? I understand your point of view, and was thinking about doing so from your comments, but again, I just want to be clear. I apologize for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should be removed, unless consensus decides that it is OK to keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, it has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus, I just saw that File:ChadVincentSex.jpg was deleted (the image was on my watchlist). From my review of the article (seen in the peer review), I found the image to pass the WP:Non-free guideline because of number 5 at WP:Non-free content#Images and WP:NFCC#8. As noted above, the image was used to aid critical commentary about the characters' sexual relationship. Above, Aoba47 stated, "I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character 'made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex', and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic." Those are solid reasons to maintain the image. One could, however, argue that the image isn't needed since readers can easily picture the two in bed together. Still, I think the image enhanced the article, especially since a picture is worth a thousand words. Keeping the image would be similar to keeping the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss image, which had a deletion debate. But if you both would rather that the "in bed together" image remain removed, I'm not going to drag out the debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I actually agree with you, and felt that the image was very important to visualize as I pointed out above how the sequence made daytime history and became a subject of criticism. However, I was hesitant as I am not as familiar as I should be with Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. I would love to upload the image again and add it in if that is a possibility. Thank you for your message, Flyer22 Reborn. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That image is indeed very marginal. Myself, I am not convinced that two men looking at each other in bed in an apparently sexual situation requires a non-free image to illustrate, but my opinion is not more important than yours. With a good fair use rationale, that image could be restored. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you again for both of your comments. I greatly appreciate your input, and have put a lot of thought into my decision after weighing both of your arguments. I agree with want to be careful with Jo-Jo Eumerus in that I want to be really careful with using non-free images so I will keep the article as it currently stands as the information is already present though the text. I apologize for being indecisive and going back and forth on this issue, but I am happy with the article as it currently stands. Thank you again to both of you, and I apologize to both of you for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just so you know I replaced the previous image in the infobox with a promotional image from NBC Universal Photo that I found on TV Guide. That way, I knew exactly where the source of the image. I am included a detailed summary for the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" as well. I based that around those used for images from featured articles on fictional characters. I just wanted to let you know about the update, and thank you again for the above review! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems like my comments on the prior image would apply here as well, save for the better source information of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

SupportAll my complaints have already been addressed by the nominator Carbrera (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Article meets Wikipedia standards and I see no reason to oppose this FA nomination. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Support – I can see no reason to oppose this candidacy. There's nothing really to nitpick over that hasn't been addressed at this point for me. The article is in fantastic shape. The prose is tight and clean, sourcing is good, and it is comprehensive in scope, a most interesting read. Well done and keep up the great work! DAP 💅 17:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • @DAP388: Thank you for your comment! Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

  • No DAB-links - OK.
  • No dead links - OK.
  • Thorough consistent sourcing - OK. AGF on plot information.
  • Reliable sources - obviously not Oxford University Press :), but reliable enough for a soap opera-related article (mostly TV sites, tabloids, specialist blogs).
  • If only I could find articles or books from the Oxford University Press about this character or soap opera lol.
  • I have fixed 2 broken archives, did some other minor tweaks, and removed a few overly detailed personal comments. Of course some relevant personal background details are useful, but the bulk of the article's information should be based on independent sources - not on actors talking about themselves. GermanJoe (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @GermanJoe: Thank you for your review and your revisions. Your revisions have helped to improve the article a great deal, and I always appreciate your input. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Pale Emperor[edit]

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about The Pale Emperor, the ninth studio album from rock band Marilyn Manson. It's currently a Good article, and has gone through the Peer review process. I believe it meets all the criteria for FA status. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Comment I reviewed this at PR, and I think the article is in good shape; once these minor points are fixed I expect to support.

  • One question left over from the PR: why do we care that Jimmy Chamberlin returned to the Smashing Pumpkins in an article about a Marilyn Manson album?
  • If you're going to quote "pure", I'd quote it first time and then not quote it afterwards, rather than the reverse.
  • I'd change "opined" to something like "said"; I know "opined" gets used a lot in this sort of section but I think it almost always sounds like the writer is straining for a verb other than "said". "Said" is almost invisible and very hard to overuse.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Mike. I've taken care of all your points. Sorry about the Jimmy Chamberlin one. It must have slipped through the net somehow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Looks good now; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi Homeostasis07, I think you've seen my first tentative poke of an edit. I'm going to give this a harder look today, which I hope to finish as quickly as possible. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, here we go:
  • I see on Marilyn Manson/Brian Warner's Wikipedia page that he's said that "Marilyn Manson" is "not a stage name. It's not my legal name ... Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner, my real name." This seems to be a preference for being called Warner, not "Manson". I happened to think of this because it seems somewhat odd to call him "Manson," the last name, alone, since this really is just part of a sort-of-stage name and not really a "last name" — sort of like calling David Bowie "Stardust" on second reference, only stickier since Warner is more closely identified by that name. I also know that there is a classic confusion/distinction between Marilyn Manson, the person, and Marilyn Manson, the band. This is a complicated issue that probably requires consensus across multiple pages related to him. It seems like it would be appropriate to refer to him as "Manson" if he's referred to on a page about, say, Industrial rock, or really anything outside of pages about him, since it would be potentially confusing. Maybe those issues also apply in pages about him. I'm not really sure, but I think it's worth pondering whether "Warner" is better, perhaps with some notice early on the page: more accurate, seems to be preferred by the man himself, possibly clearer writing.
This is a tricky issue. If you take everything that Manson has ever said, a case could be made for Brian Warner. However, he is known as Marilyn Manson professionally. The only time you ever see his given name being used is during album reviews written by someone who doesn't like him - this one, for example. Band members refer to him as Manson: www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:2000_Kerrang! Even his dad calls him "Manson". Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you saw that I removed some of the Twiggy info from the lead. However, some of those facts would be interesting and better-suited for inclusion in the body, particularly the fact that this was his first time sitting out since his return to the band.
  • "On June 25, bassist Fred Sablan..." The tethering of a specific date here, but not other places, is a little odd, especially because I don't have a clear sense of what year it is by the time this is mentioned. I'd recommend either including more dates, or at least years or month/year (for example, when is "three days before he was due to begin a tour"?)
  • Template:Pull quote is supposed to be for pull quotes, aka magazine-like visual repetitions of quotes already in the text, not block quotes. I don't really think this is the best policy because people love to use that template for block quotes but people seem to adhere to it.
  • The sample of "The Mephistopheles of Los Angeles" requires a caption with a description of the sample and an explanation of what musical elements are commented on, to justify its fair use. As a model you can refer to the sample boxes on OK Computer#Composition.
  • This is neither here nor there, but I'm not totally convinced of the notability or need for a MarilynManson.com article.
Shall I remove the link to MarilynManson.com in the Release and artwork section, or—? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Editions of the album sold at Walmart stores..." This sentence screams out for a quote from Manson from the source, since Walmart-bashing sass is his bread and butter.
  • Since you discuss Bates' departure from the touring band, it would be a good idea to include an earlier sentence listing the original touring line-up, since the complicated lineup changes and inclusion of new members would make it difficult for even a long-time fan to keep track, let alone a reader with no knowledge of the band.
  • This is very recent but isn't Manson's tour with Slipknot getting bad press for his intoxicated appearance and sloppy performing? Worth mentioning here, or in that tour's article?
I've been procrastinating about making an article for the tour, because I think it can be adequately summarized in The Hell Not Hallelujah Tour. A lot of the stuff online is just tabloid fodder, and grossly exaggerated: Rock N Roll Experience Magazine created this video disproving a lot of the nonsense. I think it'd be sort of pointless to point out that a bunch of sources claimed that X and Y happened, but then be able to clarify in the next sentence that neither actually occurred. What do you think? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This article relies a lot on a narrative that The Pale Emperor is Manson's best work in some time. I think this narrative is well-grounded in the sources. However, there is an issue that a reader with no knowledge of Manson's previous works has no footing in what this means. I think a brief introductory paragraph in the background would serve the article well, just to generally acquaint the reader with the idea that Manson has a generally agreed upon golden era of his late-90s/early 00s work, that he's had various hiatuses or troubles, and that at a certain point critical response to his new albums had chilled. This will prepare the reader to understand the arc of his career and how The Pale Emperor fits in.
  • "with a Kerrang! review echoing a similar sentiment." I'd like to know a bit more here — Kerrang! is a big deal among hard rock publications, and especially consider the review is not linked, meaning the reader has to rely on whatever representation you offer.
  • You should include an archive link for every single source. Most can be found at archive.org or are easy to back up there. Trust me, this will save more articles at FAR in the future than any single improvement. Links die all the time and archived urls on deck, just in case, should be mandatory for featuring imho. Just add archiveurl, archivedate, and deadurl=no.
  • Let me know when you've responded and I'll take another look. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've taken care of every point you've raised above, except for the 3 that I commented on. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks for taking care of all of those points. I think considering that this album was released not so long ago, you've done an amazing job aggregating all the sources into an FA-quality article, without the recentness resulting in any serious gaps in the story. The points you addressed above are fine as is — I think the convention of calling him Manson rather than Warner makes sense, but just wanted to double-check; as long as that article exists the links are fine; and whether accounts of Manson's behavior on tour are sensationalized or not (and as you pointed out it seems that they are), they're certainly not required for this article. Well done. —BLZ · talk 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Allen Walker[edit]

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the D.Gray-man protagonist Allen Walker. I wish it to become a FA since the Wikipedia Project for Manga and Anime doesn't have one based a character. As a result, I based this article on the recent FA Lightning (Final Fantasy). The article has been copyedited twice and had two peer reviews. Regards. Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Tintor asked me to serve as a mentor for this FAC through the new Mentoring project; given that the article has already been nominated, what I'm going to do is to review this nomination, and then go a step further and help out on solving any issues that come up.

Lead
  • The first sentence gets a little out of hand- you want that sentence to directly tell the reader who this person is, but here you're pulling in other appearances with similar names and it gets to be a bit much
  • The second sentence has a different pair of problems: first you say he's based on Robin (who?) only then to aside to who Robin is, and then aside to a visual difference between the character written in passive voice ("hair was lengthened")
  • "Allen's garment was designed to resemble nineteenth-century clothing" - "garment"? That's an odd word choice.
  • "As the manga progressed, Hoshino stated she was pleased with Allen's character development." - neat, but we just had 2 sentences about his physical appearance, so this sentence is unrelated. Also kind of pointless? She writes the thing, of course she likes it.
  • Also, we're describing Allen's clothing and differences from a prior version, and we still haven't told the reader who the heck this person is. And we've mentioned the manga and anime appearances, but there's more appearances at the end of the second paragraph.
  • In the second paragraph, you're using italics for emphasis (don't), and I still don't know after reading it when/where this story is set- the real world? Fantasy world? Space? Looks like it's 19th century Earth, which would explain the clothes.
  • "Allen later learns he is connected to the Noah and might turn into one of them." And... the end. I know that the series is ongoing, but this plot summary just cuts off abruptly.
  • Third paragraph is good enough as it goes.

So if we're going to rewrite the lead to flow better, it would work better as:

Allen Walker (Japanese: アレン・ウォーカー Hepburn: Aren Wōkā?) is a fictional character who appears as the protagonist of the manga D.Gray-man by Katsura Hoshino. He is also the protagonist of its two anime adaptations: D.Gray-man and its sequel D.Gray-man Hallow, and has appeared in three light novels, two video games, and several crossover fighting video games. In the series, set in 19th-century Earth, Allen joins the Black Order as an Exorcist: a soldier able to use a mysterious object known as Innocence to fight demons known as Akuma. While the Innocence takes the form of a giant left arm initially, over time it takes new forms and gives him new abilities. Over the course of the ongoing series, Allen uses these powers to fight the Millennium Earl, who created the army of Akuma to destroy the world, and his super-human followers, the Noah Family. During his adventures, Allen learns he is connected to the Noah and might turn into one of them.

Hoshino based Allen's character design on the shorter-haired female protagonist of a one-shot comic predecessor to the manga, Zone, named Robin. She designed Allen's clothing to resemble nineteenth-century outfits, and gave him a ribbon tie and other accessories to create a "gentlemanly image". She also gave him a scar in the shape of a pentagram to project a scary-looking image, and a calm demeanor different from her typical rambunctious and rude characters. Allen begins the series as a teenager, and matures throughout. Hoshino has stated she is pleased with Allen's character development as the manga's story has progressed.

Allen has been very popular with D.Gray-man readers, usually ranking first in the series' popularity polls. Reactions to him have also been generally positive in manga and anime publications and other media. His character design has been highly praised, with critics noting characteristics atypical of a shōnen protagonist, such as his calm demeanor and mysterious origin. Several pieces of merchandise have been released with Allen's likeness, including plush dolls and figurines, as well as clothing and cosplay pieces.

  • I'll stop there for a bit; I do want to draw your attention to a key point though- the order and details of the writing kept assuming that the reader knew what you were talking about (19th-century clothing when you haven't said that the series is set in the 19th century, for example). You do that as well in at least the next section- you start talking about the Black Order and Exorcists without introducing them first; you can't rely on the lead to inform the reader of all the concepts. See if you can run through the rest of the article as if you were a reader who had never seen the manga/anime, and hadn't read any further in the article than that point in the article, and make sure that everything still makes sense. --PresN 20:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I tried doing that for now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I tried following your advice of explaining who is who in every section User:PresN. Also, I rearranged the reception a bit.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Carbrera
  • The image in the infobox needs an alt
  • The image under "Reception#Popularity" needs an alt
  • More to come Carbrera (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Image review and comments from ProtoDrake
  • Image Review
  • Comments
    • Most of the comments I may have made on the lead have already been made above by PresN. But I would raise a different point: the use of "video games" twice in a single sentence grated slightly. You could cut out the second use's "video" and just link it to fighting game.
    • Really not sure about the use of a cosplay image here.
    • "Allen has also been popular with cosplayers.[26]" - Is there any specific cosplay group, or just a general favoring of the character?
    • "She also liked his new abilities, the Innocence Crown Clown and his sword (which was compared with the ones from Final Fantasy VII), also received praise.[39]" - This sentence is disjointed, and needs fixing.
  • May find more on a second run, but that's what leaped out at me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried addressing your points @ProtoDrake:. Thanks for the response.Tintor2 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tintor2: I've had another look through. It looks like any other points I may have raised have already been raised by others. While I still have some reservations about the cosplay image, it's not a fatal flaw. I'll Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments by Aoba47
  • In the following line from the lead (While the Innocence takes the form of a giant left arm initially…), should you specify that “the Innocence” in this context is “Allen’s Innocence” as I am assuming there are multiple forms of Innocence through the manga?
  • Please use Allen Walker’s full name when you first use it in the article.
  • Define what “the Black Order” means in the context of this manga. Also define “Exorcist” in the context of the manga. You do a great job of this in the lead, but it is absent in the article itself.
  • I confused by your identification of Zone in the “Creation and conception” section. You identify it as “the D. Gray-man one-shot comic”, but I was under the assumption that the one-shot was created prior to the development of the D. Gray-man series? Would it be more appropriate to just identify it as a “one-shot comic”?
  • @Tintor2: This still needs to be addressed. Once this is addressed, I can add my final comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tintor2: No, I meant that how it appeared in the "Creation and conception" section, but it has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Properly introduce Robin as the “protagonist” mentioned in the previous sentence. You casually mention “Robin” in the following phrase (When comparing Allen to Robin…) without clearly identifying Robin to an unfamiliar reader.
  • What do you mean by “most of them referring to the state of Allen and the other main characters”? If possible, I would expand on this a little bit more on how it relates to the character. If this is not possible, it is fine as it currently stands.
  • Define what you mean by “the previous story arc” in the final paragraph of the “Creation and conception” section
  • This line (Allen is a teenager who grows up as the series progresses) seems somewhat odd. Rather than saying the generic “grows up”, maybe something more specific about how his character develops over the course of the series.
  • Define what you mean with “His body’s age”.
  • Wikilink golem if it is not a series-specific creation. Also, is it necessary to capitalize this word?
  • Define “the Noah family” in the “Appearances” section. You did a great job identifying this in the lead, so remember to do so in the article itself.
  • Use “crossover fighting games” in the “In other media” section as you have done in the lead.

@Tintor2: I know there are a lot of comments, but you have done a fantastic job with this article. Once all of my above comments have been addressed, I will leave my final vote. It is great to see high quality manga articles on here. Good luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Aoba47:. I tried following all your suggestions. However, the series' title is still ambiguous as some friends I have even debate if the "D" stands for "dear" or "dark". My only theory is that in an early chapter, Allen sees the world "black and white" as he is able to distinguish demons from common people. Still, that's pure OR.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2: That makes sense, so the statement about the series title is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Awesome work! I can now support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Calling two users who were present in the second peer review to dig more comments @Garagepunk66: @Crazy runner:.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Also @Jaguar: since he reviewed the GA nomination.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


Review by AngusWOOF

I just had some comments upon reading this article:

  • characteristics: regressing? as in age regression? maturity regression? hair recession? should it be linked?
    • Done.
  • characteristics: teenager who grows up as the series progresses - change to something like: is introduced as a teenage boy. If you want to cover age spans in other media, you can discuss how many years the original series covers, and any notable ages he is for the spinoff / light novels.
    • Done. Well, in the first volume Hoshino said he was 15. In the latest she guidebook, Allen's age is 16. However, in the latest chapters Nea said he should be at least 25 in a confusing way.
Perhaps change "Allen is a teenager who grows up as the series progresses." to "The series follows Allen's adventures starting when he was about 15-16 years old.(reference about 15 in vol. 1, 16 in guidebook) Although most of his colleagues assume he ages normally, his former friend Nea has stated he should be at least 25 years old and is actually (regressing|growing younger).(reference)
Done.
  • characteristics: adjust "becomes white from shock" tense. I thought his hair was white throughout the series and the reddish brown was a flashback? If the entire childhood story is covered in chapter 1 as a present-tense, then retain this, but not if he's already white-haired and then has a flashback of his youth in chapter/episode 1.
    • Fixed.
  • one-shot comic Zone - did Hoshino write Zone? change to "a one-shot comic" to "her one-shot comic". It's not like Zone is a notable one-shot in the magazine's history.
    • Fixed.
    • Done
  • Introduction polls: "usually ranking first" as Walker was the most popular on 2 of the 4 polls for the series, with Yu Kanda topping the other 2. That's not usually. That's 2 of 4 polls, and there isn't any data to show where he ranked in the ones Yu Kanda topped.
This is better. I'd remove usually unless there are more than four polls?
    • Done.
  • Regarding the scar, where is it? On his cheek? Forehead? I can't tell on the cover image. Is it usually visible or covered? I'm reading later on that he has a deformed left arm, cursed eye, and stark white hair. Wouldn't those be just as frightening?
    • Done.
  • In other media / video games - Allen being a playable character. Is he the central character in the game or is he among several players in a party? I'm assuming in the fighting games, he's just one of many fighter options, and that he's the central in the D.Gray-man ones.
    • Done.
Okay, but I'm still curious as to whether in the two main non-fighting games, whether Allen is the central player character (played throughout the game) or just one among many choices in the game.
  • Was volume 1, p. 61 an in-volume interview? Is it in the same page location for both the English and the Japanese version? If so, you can keep this verbiage, but I would be cautious if the interview was placed in different locations across media.
    • The author listed that after the first chapter where she shared info about it.
  • Appearances in D.Gray-man. "All Exorcists are ordered to kill Allen". Isn't Allen an Exorcist? Does he get an order to kill himself? Change to "The other Exorcists are ordered" ? As this happens in 170 but he's already transformed into a Noah in chapter 167? Or is there some number of chapters where he struggles between being Allen and Nea?
    • Done. Allen and Nea became basically enemies to fight to become the owner of the body but lately Mana is winning.
Perhaps this should be mentioned more clearly that the struggle with Nea is an ongoing thing for a good number of chapters? Does that mean he exhibits a multiple personality? And reword that he is being hunted by his fellow Exorcists? It's hard to figure out whether most Exorcists are following orders and whether or not his closest friends are still siding with him regardless.
I'm not entirely sure. Allen forgets what happens when Nea takes control of his body. Also, about his allies, it's quite complicated. Both Johnny and Lenalee keep saying Allen is their friend. On the other hand, Kanda doesn't care, but later decides to help him. Wouldn't that be too much fancruft? Also added, a sentence about Allen's initial transformations.
It sounds like Nea's spirit has remained dormant inside Allen and then awakened to try to take over his body, succeeding on occasion, and then his fellow Exorcists are on alert to stop that if that were to happen? Maybe a rewrite like: "On returning to headquarters, Allen learns that Nea, who had betrayed the Earl and was killed, had implanted his memories into Allen, and plans to take over Allen's body to transform him into the 14th Noah. His comrades, which have been given orders to kill the 14th Noah, start questioning his identity. Allen experiences situations where Nea has taken over and where his Noah/Akuma-attacking Crown Clown's sword starts hurting him." This puts Nea's actions against the Earl in the past tense / flashbacks, as writing that in the historical present tense had me confused as to whether Nea was alive during the main storyline. Also is this the same Nea as his former friend? Perhaps remove that former friend Nea part from the other section as that can be confusing.
Yes, the same Nea. This is the guy who is both the 14th Noa as well as Allen's former friend. In volume 24, Nea wonder why can't Allen remember him as well as why he has not aged.
It's a bit confusing how Nea appears. Is he a separate person Allen encounters or is he inside Allen's body/mind when he interacted with him in volume 24? Is he both? And are they really friends?

@AngusWOOF: Tried to reword it. Nea makes brief appearances during early volumes especially when Allen plays the Noah's Ark piano. He had a body but before being killed, he transmitted his mind to Allen. According Nea himself, they used to be allies but when he saw a recording of Timcampy he said now they would enemies. However, their relationship is still a mystery now that especially since the manga is only published every three months.

  • Criticism in reception section? Should there be a paragraph that critiques the character or says what things weren't that impressive?
    • There are only two criticism about how they compared with cliche characters or deem his original powers simple (in the first paragraph of "critical response"), but reception has been mostly positive. (And I searched a lot). For example, fellow GA Yu Kanda had a lot mixed responses based on his introductions but then got praise for his development.
Fair enough for weight.

Those are my first thoughts. I like the detail on the various sections. Let me know if you need me to explain further. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Thanks for the review AngusWOOF. I tried covering everything you mentioned.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Indented with further comments. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @AngusWOOF:. Already tried to fix all issues.Tintor2 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Added a reply above. Also some more:

  • In the third D.Gray-man novel, is Red supposed to be Allen, or a character that is similar to Allen? I'm wondering how that is relevant to Allen's article?
Red is Allen's nickname when he was in the circus. He took the name Allen from a dead dog. Should I reword it?
It could explain how it follows Allen's adventures in the circus when he went under the nickname Red?
Done.
  • Any coverage of Sanae Kobayashi's portrayal of Allen? Was there a reason given for why she was replaced by Murase?
Sadly nothing. The second anime replaced everybody from the cast.
This may need to be explained like "In the anime TV series and related franchise, Allen was voiced by Sanae Kobayashi. In 2016, for the new TV anime series D.Gray-man Hallow, the voice parts were recast with Murase replacing Kobayashi."
Done.

AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC), add'l replies 14:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Did I miss anything @AngusWOOF:? I'm a bit busy today and tomorrow, so I might not work too much in this.Tintor2 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Child voice actor portrayal. Is it relevant? Do they have a bunch of flashbacks, or is this just an episode 1 kind of guest role? If it's the latter, it doesn't need to be highlighted up front or put in the infobox.
Removed.
Still a bit confused with Nea as a former friend. Were they friends from childhood? Was Nea more of a colleague? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: About Nea it's still confusing since Allen (and thus the readers) don't know the actual truth about Allen's actual past and his relationship with the Earl and Nea. I reworded it to be more consistent with the manga's present rather than the past. I hope it works. Thanks again for the feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, remove the age part since the chapter doesn't say he is 25 years old, and replace with "Nea, who possesses his body later on, suspects he hasn't really aged and could possibly be growing younger." Cite to chapter 215. Or strike that statement altogether as he isn't an authority on Allen's age, whereas the 15-16 is citable to the character profile at the end of chapter 1 and the guidebook. The guidebook also has timelines for each of the characters like at age 9, Allen does (event1). At age 11, (some event2). It also says his age is assumed to be around 15 so go with whatever figures the chapter / guidebook states. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Like this? There is a brief timeskip in volume 16 of a year as mostly covered with Lenalee regrowing her lost hair.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, but you don't need to say what his age is as it progresses, besides what happens in the introduction. Someone could start at age 15, have some birthdays and so forth and going through school years. You don't need to say that he becomes 16 or 17, unless there's an event worth mentioning like, "on his 18th birthday, he joins the army". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Like this?Tintor2 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's clean enough now. Thanks for tweaking that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In the "In other media" section, Remove or fix up "As wells as video games," AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked that sentence. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues have been addressed. I'm stamping it as a pass. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that the magic word for the nominations viewer script is support. --PresN 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC), updated 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Back from work. Thanks, @AngusWOOF: but shouldn't you change to support according to @PresN:? Tintor2 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Support FA for this article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to this late. I have read through the article and have concluded that the prose now flows much better than it did when I last read it during the GAN, and also everything else has been addressed thanks to other reviewers' input. I think this meets the FA criteria as it is and will support as a result. It's broadly well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out (though I only managed to look through the first half due to my poor internet connection at the moment). JAGUAR  14:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

First, let me say I don't envy anyone trying to write a clear summary of the plot points from a speculative fiction series, which can be quite convoluted. Since I'm not familiar with the source material, most of my comments are questions.

  • Lead: "His character design has been highly praised, ... . Still, some writers compared him with other series from the same demographic." The use of "Still" suggests a contrast between the two sentences, but if so that isn't clear. Was he compared negatively to other characters? I didn't get that impression from the Reception section.
    • Changed. There is only one comparison in the DVDtalk review.
  • Conception and creation: "The series' title, "D.Gray-man", is meant to have various meanings, most of them referring to the state of Allen and the other main characters." I'm not clear on what type(s) of "state" are being referenced here. Emotional? Physical? Ethical? I looked at the article about the manga, but it doesn't seem to clarify this point.
    • The author never explained it. She didn't even state was the meaning of the "D".
  • In other media: "As well as being in the manga and anime series, ..." The subsection above is titled "In D.Gray-man", which I initially took to mean it was a summary of the character's plotlines in the original manga. But this lead-in phrase makes me wonder if the earlier chronicle covers the anime also. Are the plots of the manga and anime sufficiently identical for that? If so, it should probably be stated explicitly. If not, it seems like a summary of his anime appearances is missing.
    • The anime adds some filler but they have had no impact on the character's traits.
  • Critical response: "The revelation that Allen was going to be become an enemy from the Order, the 14th Noah ..." Shouldn't that be "an enemy of the Order"?
  • Characteristics: I found this section confusing until I read the Appearances section, because it contains various mentions of plot events that are explained more fully under Appearances. It might flow better to have Characteristics after Appearances.
    • Moved.

I made some small copyedits directly; of course put them back if I messed up something. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks for the feedback. Already tried doing all your recommendations. Ping me again if I forgot something.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: I forgot to mention this but the characteristics section I based it on Ellie (The Last of Us)#Atrributes that was given as an example by another user in regards to how a FA could be made. Also, the first paragraph of Appearances shows the character's backstory. However, more parts about Allen's secret past are shown in later volumes of the series. Do you think's Allen backstory should be told in characteristics or would that be unnecessary?Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2: As long as Characteristics comes later, I don't see a need to reprise. At this point I am willing to support with the caveat that it is based only on prose and layout. I spot-checked a few of the English sources, but a lot of the sources are in Japanese, so I can't cover that angle adequately. I assume the coordinators will want someone to speak to that before promoting. Two sourcing comments to help smooth your way with anyone who does:
  • Book sources such as We Love Cosplay Girls should have page numbers supplied, even if you use a Google Books link. Those links are not reliable for all users because access varies by location and whatever other factors Google feels like using. The one for that book took me to a "no access" view.
  • A couple of the items about merchandising are sourced to Amazon pages, I presume selling the indicated item. Since the only thing claimed is that such items have been sold, I guess that is acceptable, but only just. If there is a secondary source that mentions these items, that would be better.
Since I'm not able to check most of the sources, I won't withhold my caveated support over either of these items. --RL0919 (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: So you'll support me if I remove the url to that book? I'm a nit confused.Tintor2 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Already did support. I just can't claim to have done any significant consideration of the sources. (A source review request on the FAC talk page might help you there.) The final bullets are simply suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: Thanks for the review. I'll try to correct that.Tintor2 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Review by magiciandude
  • Well now, looks like I've found another anime to add to my watchlist. I'll take a look and so expect a feedback sometime. Erick (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"She also liked his new abilities, the Innocence "Crown Clown" and Allen's sword, comparing the latter to swords from the video game Final Fantasy VII." What does this mean? Now I am familiar with FF7 and all, but as a perspective of a reader who may not be, I think this should be just expanded a little bit. Erick (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Does this work?. Also, this page became huge. Should we make subsections to make it easier to read? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
So, is it referring to swords wielded by Cloud Strife or a specific sword (like the Buster Sword or Fusion Swords)? I think the change is good, but it just has to be a little bit more specific. Just a little bit. Erick (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Magiciandude:Allen's sword looks more like Buster one. But still, wasn't it that the Fusion Swords only appeared in the movie Advent Children whereas the Buster one is his initial one in the gam?Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh that's right. I forgot about. Anyways, I've crossed it out and I'll have another look at the article. As a side note, it is not necessary to ping me as I'm watching this page. Erick (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Hpesoj00

I didn't get around to peer reviewing the whole article, so I'll do it now.

  • "he briefly starts turning into Nea across the series to the point Crown Clown's sword starts hurting himself" – This sentence is confusing. The word "briefly" contradicts "across the series", which suggests a long-term change.
    • Changed to briefly. Across sounds like a long period of time.
  • "he sends him to another location" – Who does "he" refer to? The Black Order? Not grammatical.
    • Fixed. Allen sends him.
  • "several other playable characters from Weekly Shōnen Jump manga magazine" – You then list a bunch of games. Do you mean playable characters from games featured in the magazine?
    • No, those are games that collect characters from the magazine. I tried fixing it.

I made an edit to the article myself. Please check I didn't do anything silly. Hpesoj00 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Today I'm a bit busy due to work, so I might not be able to address anybody's issues until evening.Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Night of January 16th[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the debut play of author Ayn Rand. It was her first big professional success, and the only one of her plays to be a hit. It was also the last hit for Al Woods, one the most successful Broadway producers of the early 20th century.

Since the previous nomination there is some additional material and sources, as well as a couple of additional images. The article also went to the Guild of Copy Editors for a thorough copy edit. Finally, I approached User:Curly Turkey about mentoring under the new FAC mentoring scheme. He provided additional copy editing and some feedback. So now it's here for round three. RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I support on prose, as I did last round. The nom died last time from reviewer apathy rather than unresolved issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments
  • Not sure different premiere-dates and theatres for each title in the infobox is necessary. It seems just the title changed; it wasn't substantially a different play. Otoh I think Woman on Trial and Penthouse Legend need to be in the infobox.
  • Jury element: the long list of celebrity of juror names is unnecessary and tedious to read. All you need is a couple of the most prominent names. If you don't want to lose the info, you can relegate it to a footnote.
  • Themes: surprised to see no mention of Objectivism. What place does the philosophy of Night have in her overall thought?—indopug (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Replies:
  • I reduced the info to just the first premier, as Woman on Trial, so you can see what that might look like. {{Infobox play}} does not have a parameter for alternative titles, and the 'name' parameter creates the infobox header, so I don't know of any other way the other titles would be mentioned there.
  • I get your point on the juror list; will look at different ways of doing it and probably update tomorrow. See update below.
  • The play is from early in Rand's career and is by her own description not philosophical. Basically it pre-dates Objectivism or any systematic philosophizing by her. To the extent that it was influenced by philosophy, the common view in sources is that it was the philosophy of Nietzsche, which Rand was interested in at the time but which she later rejected. --RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    If you can find a source that says that, it would be good to say so for those who may be wondering. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I moved most of the juror details to a note. I did a draft of leaving it in the body with fewer names, but it seemed somewhat arbitrary as to who I might include. Regarding philosophy, most of what I said above is in the article, except the chronological point that this was written before she formulated Objectivism. I'll see if there is a source that says that or some equivalent. I did remove the addition of "philosopher" as a description for her, because that is anachronistic. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Turned out to be easier to source than I expected, thanks to a book published earlier this year. --RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Indopug:, it's been a while since your last comment, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I had responded to all of your previous input. Thanks for helping, and let me know if you have any other suggestions for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I am happy with the changes so far. My major remaining concern is with the structure of the article. History seems far too broad and unwieldy (stretching from 1933 to 1973 with many sudden narrative leaps in between), and Productions too dry (as a list of theatres, dates and actors) and somewhat repetitive of History (don't see why the month-long EE Clive production needs to be in two sections; ditto for the Ambassador run). I think having the entire History+Productions info recast completely chronologically and then split into new sections (Background, Writing, Creative conflicts, Productions, Aftermath maybe?) would solve these problems, but I'm not sure.—indopug (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I was a little skeptical, but actually that turned out to be a relatively easy change, and generally an improvement. Give it a look and see what you think. Section titles and image placement may need some tweaking, as might wording of specific sentences that are in new places within the narrative. --RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Indopug: Just making sure you saw the changes made following your last suggestion. I did do some further tweaking after my previous comment. Not sure if you are following this FAC page and/or the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Give me a day or two.—indopug (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@RL0919:

First time reviewing a play but I'll try to address some issues I find:
  • Avoid short paragraphs like "Despite the disputes between Rand and Woods, the play opened at Shubert's Ambassador Theatre on September 16, 1935, where it ran successfully for seven months. It closed on April 4, 1936, after 283 performances.[23]" If you can't expand them, merge it other paragraphs with others. Same is with "In 1989, Bollywood director Anant Balani's debut film Gawaahi, a Hindi-language adaptation of Night of January 16th starring Indian actress Zeenat Aman, was released.[99][100]"
  • In the "Cast of the Broadway production of Night of January 16th (in speaking order)" there are some blank parts in Other notable performers. However, are they necessary for this article?
Other than that I don't find other noticeable issues with this article (probably because I'm not new to them). However, I would recommend archiving some really old references in case they become deadlinks. Also, if you have time could you check my FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1? Also, I would suggest you to review more FAN in order to get more feedback to this nomination. Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2:, thanks for the feedback. Added archive links for online-only sources per your suggestion. There are only a few of those. Many of the links are online archives of print sources, and as such are verifiable even if the linked sites cease to exist. I also merged one paragraph and expanded another. The paragraph about Gawaahi is still somewhat short, but the content doesn't really belong as part of another paragraph. Regarding the cast lists, the intention is that non-Broadway cast are listed only if the actor is notable, so there will typically be some unfilled slots. Hope that addresses all your concerns about the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919: Good work. I'll give you my support. I also suggest calling the GA reviewer through the ping's work to get to more feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

California State Route 76[edit]

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

State Route 76 is another highway in San Diego County. It has existed in some form since the 1930s and is still used widely today. Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Small Content Comment - In the "Major Intersections" subsection, it says
 R reflects a realignment in the route since then, M indicates a second realignment, L refers an overlap due to a correction or change, and T indicates postmiles classified as temporary
And then in the following table that this is supposedly a key for, there are only R's and no-letters. I question why this is necessary at all? Is information about realigned milemarkers not available for all the intersections? Why include M, L, and Ts in the key when you don't use them? Fieari (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a template that is used across many California state highway articles. Only routes with those particular realignments will have postmiles with those particular letters. --Rschen7754 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that's troublesome. The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template. That means I'm looking for "Brilliant prose", and... well, this isn't. I'd also want to know why some of the mile listings are 1964 based, and some are more accurate. This sort of information should be in a FA. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
"The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template." -> it is part of a template, see Template:CAinttop. Also, all postmiles were measured in 1964, across the state. It is when a route was realigned after that a letter is added. --Rschen7754 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fieari: In this case, after the FAC was submitted I discovered another source for the mileages, and have replaced all of them on this article. This should resolve your objections. With that being said, I am strongly concerned with the reviewing methodology of focusing on the legend for a table, rather than reviewing the other 98% of the article, the latter of which I would encourage you to focus on in future reviews. --Rschen7754 06:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Rschen, that does look better. I know I only focused on this one place, but that's only because it stood out to me like a glaring thumb after only a cursory glance over the article-- that is, it didn't make any sense to me, and context did not seem apparent. Please consider this a compliment... the rest of the article did not have anything jump out at me.
Allow me to be more formal about it:
Prose Check, Pass - The article is comprehensible, with no outstanding sections that are difficult to read or confusing. The prose is flowing, and free of grammatical errors (that I could find). The article is informative, and covers the points I would expect to find in an excellent article of this sort.
I have not conducted a sourcing check. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for taking a look! --Rschen7754 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that the mileage in the infobox and the major intersections table doesn't match. Is there a way this can be fixed? Dough4872 14:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed now. --Rschen7754 00:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article against the featured article criteria during an A-class review, as well as verifying sources in the same review. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

First Tennessee Park[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a minor league baseball stadium in Nashville, Tennessee. I believe it meets the criteria to become a featured article. The article's previous nomination did not receive enough feedback for consensus. I will be reaching out to WikiProjects Tennessee & Baseball this time. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Tentative support in comprehensiveness and prose, as last time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried reading the article twice but found no issues (except maybe two small paragraphs but that's too nitpick) so I support. Also, I'm also nominating my own GA, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1, so I wondered if you could check it. Also, about the previous review not receiving enough feedback, I have been told I could get more feedback by doing what I have just done: Review other FAN in exchange of another review or request other users you met (or the project) to check it. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from RL0919

Looks pretty good from what I've read so far. Not entirely finished yet, but it's getting late so I'll leave some notes/questions and circle back tomorrow:

  • According to WP:CHECKLINKS (report here) there are five external links with significant problems.
    • I've replaced several dead references, and I think everything should now be in order. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Nashville Sounds had originally planned to leave Herschel Greer Stadium for a new ballpark called First Tennessee Field in the early 2000s, but the project was abandoned, partly because of the initial effects of the Great Recession." I find this wording confusing. I think you may mean they started working on a plan in the early 2000s (with the move date to be sometime later), rather than planning to leave their old stadium in the early 2000s. Otherwise there must be some explanation about what delayed the project to the point that it could be cancelled during the late-2000s Great Recession.
    • I included a more specific original target opening date and removed the recession reference. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: "paid for by five city revenue streams". The property taxes from private developments are two of the five, yes? Otherwise I only count four listed.
    • Yes. In replacing dead reference links, I found a better reference that details each development's property tax payments. The sentence now makes the five sources clear. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The subsection called "Opening" seems to cover a number of things beyond the opening. Perhaps a slightly different header, or should some items be moved to the "Other events" subsection?
    • I renamed it "Minor League Baseball" with the intention of it covering the stadium's primary use as a minor league ballpark. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The site on which First Tennessee Park was built was formerly a run-down area of old warehouses and parking lots." It is mentioned multiple times above that it was built on the site of a previous ballpark. Suddenly it is warehouses and parking lots. I gather from checking the Sulphur Dell article that this is what happened after the old park closed, but this article doesn't explain. An extra sentence or two about the history would help connect it for the reader.
    • I added details comparing the neighborhood when Sulpher Dell stood on the location versus the present/soon-to-be future once other projects are completed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The ballpark's design is inspired by Nashville's heritage." This is immediately followed by discussion of concrete and metal rather than anything about the "heritage" design. I think this sentence would be better served if it was consolidated into the final paragraph of the Design subjection, which does discuss the heritage elements.

More to come. --RL0919 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes so far; I believe all the issues above are addressed. A few others and hopefully we will be looking good.
  • "One of Greer Stadium's most distinctive features was its guitar-shaped scoreboard. Having received overwhelming support from the community, a larger, more modern guitar-shaped scoreboard was designed ..." The placement on the "overwhelming support" clause in the second sentence makes it sound like the new scoreboard got the overwhelming support, but wasn't it support for the the old scoreboard that inspired the new one?
  • Yes. I added some details about why it wasn't moved and made it (hopefully) clearer that attachment to the old board was the reason for a new guitar scoreboard at the new park. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Seats on both levels are traditional, plastic stadium-style chairs, and all lower-level seats behind and between the dugouts, and all second-level seats have padded seat cushions." Seems like an excess of ands, but I didn't want to accidentally change the meaning by copy editing.
  • I agree. I think the seating description flows better now. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "A section of 4-top tables—semi-circular tables surrounded by four chairs—that can accommodate 108 people at 27 tables is located at the end of the lower seating bowl in right field near The Band Box." Since The Band Box isn't discussed until later in the article, it left me wondering about it here. Perhaps some description should be added? "... near a specialty concession area called The Band Box" or something along those lines.
  • Done verbatim per your suggestion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That's all my comments on prose. Will spot check some sources before finalizing on support or not. --RL0919 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes and comments so far. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

HMS Alceste (1806)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th century frigate which fought on both sides during the Napoleonic wars. It took part in a number of notable actions but is probably best known as the ship that conveyed Lord Amherst on his diplomatic mission to China, following the Treaty of Vienna. Under Murray Maxwell, she was taken on an exploration of the South China Sea where it was discovered, amongst other things, that Korea was in the wrong place. Unlike most of her contempories, she was not ignominiously broken up at the end of her career but wrecked in the Java Sea. Her crew, marooned on the island of Pulau Laut, had to fend off pirates until rescued several weeks later.

Since being promoted to GA in December 2014, I have found additional sources and been able to provide much more information about Alceste’s capture and her previously unmentioned part in the occupation of Madeira. I have also added extra detail on: the Action of 4 April 1808, the incident in the bay of Agay, the raid at Parenza, and the Action of 29 November 1811. Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Euryalus
Construction
*capacity of just over 1,097 tons BM - spell out tons burthen in this first instance in the main text, and its worth including the x/94 fraction if available. Also, the BM abbreviation isusually lower case, as it is in the infobox?
  • Done --Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
*Suggest a wikilink to naval long gun, and dropping the "s" off the end of 9-pounder (ie it's a nine-pounder long gun, not a nine-pounders long gun). The long gun article is woefully confusing, but it's better than nothing.
  • You're quite right about the "pounders"; I hadn't noticed it before. A conversion template has been used here which adds the "s" automatically. I will see if there is any way to over-ride it, otherwise I can write it out in full.--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
*Pierre Rolland - should this be wikilinked (but hopefully also piped) to Pierre-Jacques-Nicolas Rolland?
  • Done - Thanks. I thought I'd searched for an article but obviously I didn't.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
*Minor unit of measurement variation - the beam is listed only as feet while the other dimensions are to inches. Is the beam 40 ft 0 inches, or does this exceed the precision of the source (in which case for consistency I suggest taking all the dimensions to feet only).
  • Done - The beam was 40' exactly. I've added 0" for clarity.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
French service
  • What was the French squadron at Ile-d’Aix intending to do? Currently implies that anchoring there was an end in itself.
    At that particular time they were simply intending to gain protection from the shore batteries but I rather think you're wondering what their long term objective was. I am afraid sources don't say but for some days before Pallas arrived, she was engaged in the destruction of signal towers along the coast. The signal towers were keeping track of the British ships and relaying their movements to the blockaded French ships. I presume therefore that the French squadron was waiting to be told, literally, when the coast was clear so they could make a break for it. With a bit of searching I could probably reference all that but how much do you think needs including?--Ykraps (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    Not that much; if you can say it in a handful of words then fine, if not I suspect it would break up the flow of the section so better left out. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, I've added a bit. See if it's an improvement or not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Could reword second sentence to lead with Pallas being ordered by Thornbrough to go count the ships – the way it is now takes a while to work out who Thornbrough is ordering. Also isn’t clear that Thornbrough has a squadron of his own at his immediate disposal – we only discover this later when referencing Iris and then Indefatigable.
    Done (I think) - I've started the sentence with "Pallas" and also said she was part of a squadron. Is that what you meant?--Ykraps (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph – could reword to indicate Allemande sent reinforcements (the frigates and brigs) to Minerve, ahead of of the reference to the winds and the British withdrawal.
    Okay, I've re-ordered the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikilink topsail. We don't have an article on backing the sails, I wonder if most readers will understand the term? No big deal, just throwing it out there for any views.
    Perhaps not. I've added "slowing down" to indicate the result of doing such.--Ykraps (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • “guns jolted from their positions” – assume this is Minerve’s guns.
    The source is equally ambiguous but I assume so based on the premise that Pallas then fired a broadside. I'll see if I can find a more definite source.--Ykraps (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    Apparently not. Richard Woodman makes it clear that it was Pallas' guns that were driven inboard by the force, by adding, "Undaunted, Cochrane's gunners discharged so devastating a broadside into Minerve's hull..." I have clarified this in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Did Pallas also ground? Assume so because we reference her draft, but is not clear in the article. In passing, interesting that the British vessel is smaller but more heavily gunned.
    I don't think so, no. She didn't ground because of her shallower draft but she became entangled with Minerve and had to free herself. Sources are not terribly clear on this point but that is my understanding. The official (a) French account says that Minerve didn't ground either but that her anchor fell because the stopper had broken. William James (naval historian) thinks this unlikely as she would simply have cut her cable.--Ykraps (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    I've reworded this to make it clearer and added the alternative explanation as a footnote. Again, see what think. Pallas was not the more heavily armed, she had 12-pounders and Minerve had 18-pounders. I need to take a look at that.--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's okay. The corresponding articles have Pallas carrying 26 x 12-pounder guns and 12 x 24-pounder carronades, and Minerve/Alceste with 28 × 18-pounder guns, 2 × 9-pounder guns and 16 × 32-pounder carronades (source=Winfield). William James says that at the time of her capture, Minerve was carrying 28 x 18-Pounders, 4 x 8-Pounders and 12 x 36-Pounder carronades. This differs from Winfield because he gives numbers "as built".--Ykraps (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Overall this section becomes occasionally confusing, because it is not always clear what ships are actually engaged or nearby. For example, the approach of the French frigates Armide and Indefatigable is a surprise – we had no inkling they were there until they drew near enough to involve themselves in the battle. Is there any way to detailing the relative forces of each side without this being too much detail for a single extended engagement?
    I'm still thinking about this. When Allemande sent out Minerve and the three corvettes, he also had Armide and Infatigable (not to be confused with the British Indefatigable) cleared for action and standing by. Perhaps if I mention this early on it might clarify things. I'm not sure about listing the squadrons as not all the ships are named and, as you say, it might be too much. Do you think a footnote would help?--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, I've had another look at this; moved the mention of Armide and Infatigable further up the page and tweaked the whole paragraph a bit. See if it's any better.--Ykraps (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Capture
  • Obscure one – the lighthouse is more commonly spelled Chassiron (French WP article here.
    Done - Spellings in old sources can be a bit of a problem and there doesn't appear to be a guideline for dealing with them. I usually stay faithful to the source and link it, but because there is no article, I think it's probably better to use the modern spelling.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The forming of line-of-battle seems an unnecessary detail given the order was not actually followed. Should this simply be replaced with Hood ordering the general chase? Also, potentially wikilink general chase.
    Done - I wondered about that myself so I have removed. Good idea about the link.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Needs to explain the French ships were still together when Monarch drew near. And (minor quibble), “run for it” seems a bit colloquial.
    Done - Changed to "fled".--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


British service
  • Alceste was the frigate unsuccessfully sent to rescue the Pope in 1808 so that he could seek asylum in Britain. While the rescue failed, it placed this vessel at the centre of what would have been a substantial European event. It would be good to include mention of this in the article.
    Indeed, it would be very good to include this in the article but I'm afraid I cannot find any mention of it in the sources I have available. Do you have a reference?--Ykraps (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I've got a Mariners Mirror article on it that covers the main points - will work out how to get it across to you. It's not an earth-shattering addition, just think it's worth a few lines. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
That would be this then.[[2]] Unfortunately I can't access the article as I'm not a member. Although £40 pa doesn't seem bad value particularly as it gets you free access to the Royal Naval Museum and HMS Victory.--Ykraps (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a piece based on the above article. Not sure about the length and detail; take a look and let me know what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Alceste_at_Bogue.jpg: source link is dead and what are the two authors' dates of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    Judging by the address I would say that was from the National Maritime Museum [[3]]. I am afraid I'm not an expert on copyright legislation but the book it was published in is in the public domain.--Ykraps (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    ...and here it is.[[4]] This gives the year of McLeod's death as 1820.--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    And this says Dubourg died in 1838.[[5]]--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, Is there something you want me to do with this information?--Ykraps (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    Please add author dates and source details to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
    Done - Although I'm only guessing the source based on the nmm (National Maritme Museum) part of the original link.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • So far this looks pretty good. To explain my first edit summary from today: I deleted a bit from the first paragraph so that readers would find out sooner that the ship was captured by the British and renamed. The faster they have that information, the faster the article title makes sense, and the less effort they have to expend making sense of it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think that makes more sense. It's usual to keep everything in chronological order but in this case I think it's detrimental to do that.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I just now saw your question at the peer review about that comma. The answer is that in a comma-heavy sentence, it's a common style (and seems to be FAC style) to also have a comma separating the two independent clauses, particularly when there's a comma nearby that might be mistaken, even for a millisecond, for the separation point between the clauses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "40 feet 0 inches": I'm not sure what reviewers are going to say about that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    It originally said sinply 40' but someone made the point that it looked odd when all other dimensions were feet and inches. I thought that was a fair point at the time and changed it. Perhaps I'll see if anyone else weighs in on the subject.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I got down to HMS_Alceste_(1806)#Capture. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • A bit hard to imagine how the ship looked, perhaps show a more "neutral" view of a ship of the same type (Armide-class frigate ?) somewhere?
That makes this (unimportant) issue the last one unaddressed. Any comment? FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In terms of showing how the ship looked, the illustration in the Armide-class article is very good but I've been wondering how I can fit it in. Images ought to be relevant to the text so the obvious place would be in the construction section but this creates some nasty sandwiching of the text. I toyed with the idea of using it in the infobox and moving that image to where it talks about that engagement but I'm not sure about having a picture of another ship in the infobox when one of the actual ship is available. I've been looking for some sort of guideline but haven't found anything yet. Do you have any further thoughts or Dank, Euryalus? --Ykraps (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 08:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Prefer the Armide-class image for the lead - it gives a clearer representation of the general vessel design, and better fits thousands at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Support retaining the other image in the article body, as suggested. -- Euryalus (talk)
Okay, I've swapped the images as agreed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "built to a design by Pierre Rolland for the French Navy as the Minerve" Selflink.
    Removed
  • I'm not sure about referring to the ship by its later name in a section where it was called something else? Perhaps just start with calling it "the ship was built to a design etc."?
    • Yes. SHIPS people tend to have definite opinions on names, and I have to admit I'm not sure how they like to handle this. I'm generally happy with their approach to these questions. If it were up to me, the first word both in the lead and in the first section below the lead would be "Minerve"; "HMS Alceste" would appear (bolded) in the second sentence in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think I have done that. I've referred to it as Minerve when it was called Minerve and Alceste when it was called Alceste. Or do you mean something else?--Ykraps (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Under Construction and armament you say "Alceste was built to a design by Pierre Rolland". FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes that's true but its relationship to Minerve is explained in the very same sentence. As with Dank's reasoning above regarding the intro, it is better that the reader finds out quickly that the ship was captured by the British and renamed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If Dank is happy with this, I am too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
No objections. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "under Contre-Amiral Zacharie Allemand" Why is the rank in the link? Couldn't that link to something else?
    Linked to Contre-amiral although that particular article isn't very good. Perhaps it ought to link to Rear-admiral?--Ykraps (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Whatever you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention what both names were based on in-text, and not only in the infobox?
    I'm unable to find any reference for either namesake and have therefore removed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No namesake in the infobox for Alceste?
    The British couldn’t retain the name Minerve because they already had a ship of that name so they named her Alceste probably after HMS Alceste (1793) which the French presumably named after Alcestis. This is unreferenced original research though, as is often the case in the articles that contain this sort of information.--Ykraps (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and forced her to strike at 15:00." What is meant by strike?
    I've linked this for you.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What happened to the crew after capture?
    It's not recorded. They were usually locked in the hold until they could be put ashore either in a neutral port where they were released or in a home port where they were imprisoned.--Ykraps (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "to extract his holiness the Pope" I don't think honorifics are to be used.[6]
    Removed --Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Which pope are we talking about?
    Pius VII. I've added and linked.--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we get date and maybe attribution for the captions of all the illustrations?
    I assume you mean attribution for the illustrations so I've added that. If you mean attribution for the captions, most of them were mine. :) --Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yup! FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is Fort Maxwell bolded in a caption?
    No idea. Now removed, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Madeira and La Pomone are overlinked.
    Removed - I think. Let us know if I've not got them all.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Napoleon is not linked at first mention, but way below.
    Removed - a paragraph was added later.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The intro seems short for the article length. Little mention of the ship's actions under French control, for example. Should summarise the entire article
    She had only been commissioned a few months before her capture and her only notable action was the duel with Pallas on 14 May 1806 so its inclusion could be deemed WP:UNDUE. There was a short paragraph detailing it in the intro but it was removed with this edit here [[7]]. I have added it back in a slightly different guise to see if I can please you both.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - every issue addressed nicely. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: Down to the start of the Diplomatic Mission to China section. Looking good. I've done some copyediting; most of it is just punctuation (I'm mildly addicted the mdash, so feel free to replace these) or fairly minor rewording. Just a couple of points so far, but the first one is quite a big one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comma inconsistency: When we start a sentence with dates or adverbials, we need to be consistent whether or not we have a comma. For instance, we have "In 1814 Alceste was converted..." and "At 23:00 the British landed 200 seamen" but also "Two days later, Pallas..." and "On 22 May 1810, Alceste encountered ...". Whichever method we are using, the article needs a good check to make sure we are consistent.
    Ordinarily I would employ a comma because that's the way I was taught, although I think the modern trend is to omit them. Dank is midway through a copy edit so I don't want to put commas in where I suspect he will remove them.--Ykraps (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My preference is to include them too; I think the most important issue is to be consistent. If Dank doesn't get a chance before I finish, I can stick a few in here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Do whatever looks right to you, Sarastro, I'm sure it will be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "It has been suggested by the British historian James Henderson that this action was a factor in Napoleon's decision to change the direction of his planned eastward expansion in 1812 from the Balkans to Russia": Does anyone else share this view? And how mainstream is Henderson? Is this a controversial theory or a respected one? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    I vaguely remember someone else postulating the same thing but currently I'm unable to find where. Are you suggesting it is WP:Fringe? To me it's not an unreasonable thing to think. The army at Trieste was poised to invade the Balkans, the cannon were bound for the army there, and shortly after their capture, Napoleon changed his mind and invaded Russia. Henderson suggests it may have been a factor. I would like to keep it as it's interesting and has been used for a WP:DYK but if it's a deal breaker...--Ykraps (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not saying it is WP:FRINGE, I'm sure it's perfectly respectable. I'm well aware that top academics can hold differing views from their peers without being dismissed as cranks! I was meaning more along the lines of is it only him that thinks so among historians, or do others share his view? I'd be very slightly happier if others said so too, but the way it is phrased here makes it clear that it is his view, and that makes it absolutely acceptable to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    I'm still looking. I thought William James (naval historian) also mooted the idea but apparently not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

More: Read to the end now. This is a rather marvellous article! If no-one else tackles the commas before I have a last look, I'll have a go myself, but I'll be more than happy to support when I've had a final read-through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I notice there is a little more about the journey up the Tigris in our article on General Hewett, but I've no idea if it's reliable or not. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Note, Tigris is not a river, it is the Bocca Tigris, Mouth of the Tiger, a stretch on the Pearl River. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That article is mainly the work of User:Acad Ronin whose sources are usually reliable and accurate. Is there a particular bit of information you would like to see included?--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Absent original research in logbooks, should they survive, my info is only as accurate as the published sources. Please let me know if you have any questions.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Eega[edit]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Eega is a 2012 Indian film whose protagonist, a murdered man, reincarnates as a fly and avenges his death. Due to some personal reasons, i withdrew its first FAC. Dr. Blofeld, Baffle gab1978 (GOCE), Mike V. Christie have helped me in making this a better article since then. I look forward for some constructive comments from anyone interested to make this a better article, and eventually a FA.

Yours Truly, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, have read this and made some straightforward fixes. It reads well enough to me that I can't see any prose glitches remaining. And comes across as comprehensive. Thus I tentatively support it becoming a featured article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Cas Liber. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

I have read until the end of Filming and post-production; I am not finding much to criticize here as it has had enough commentators (and if I recall correctly, I took part in one of its peers). Here are a few to begin with.

  • "Eega (English: The Fly) is a 2012 Indian, bilingual, fantasy film" - what's with the commas? Are they necessary.
  • Removed.
  • I can understand the opening one-line paragraph of the plot section, but what's with the ending one?
  • It began as a bedtime story, and should end like one.
  • "Indian screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad" - do we need his nationality?
  • A suggestion by SchroCat. It may be helpful for non-Indian readers.
  • " tailor-made for the roles" - are we talking about clothes here? The "tailor-made" word is not very clear or maybe it's just me.
  • Changed it to "apt"
  • "Rajamouli's brother, S. S. Kanchi" - does a link within Wikipedia exists about him? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A few others:

  • "R. C. Kamalakannan and Pete Draper of Makuta VFX supervised Eega's visual effects,[45][46] while Rahul Venugopal was the film's set supervisor and matte painter" - supervis.. in close proximity.
  • Changed the first to "oversaw".
  • "he compared the battle between the fly and Sudeep, which the underdog wins" - who's the underdog here - the fly?
  • Yes. I've mentioned it.
  • I am counting "in an interview" six times. I am also seeing xx of xx quite a lot.
  • I agree that there are many. But, i feel it important to do so as someone is publishing a person's opinions on a film here.
Yeah, but some of them can be rephrased. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed a few. Hope it looks better now.
  • Themes: There are a few examples of "saidism": using words like "wrote" and "called" to avoid the repetition of "said". It's quite hard to overuse "said", but even when "said" isn't the best choice, there are usually better ways out of the problem than substituting this sort of word.
  • I don't know whether there is a word like "saidism". :) I do not have particular ideas to do so. If you can provide an example, it shall be very helpful.
I don't think such word exists either that's why I have given it in quote. What I meant by that is the you used words like "wrote" and "called" to avoid the repetition of "said", as in "he said," "he wrote" "he called", but upon rereading they don't seem to be a lot. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

These are suggestions from me you can adapt or dismiss. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

All constructive comments are welcome, FrB.TG. Please do revisit this candidate and help me solve those issues. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That's it - thanks for working on it. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments. I hopefully resolved all of them and am hopeful that it meets your expectations. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

After having a quick run through, I feel that the article meets 1 (b) and 1 (c) of WP:WIAFA. However, I have some reservations about the prose. Not that I'm an expert, but still:

  • "K. K. Senthil Kumar was director of photography, M. M. Keeravani composed the soundtrack and score, and Kotagiri Venkateswara Rao edited the film." This needs to be rephrased (and possibly split) as the first two bits constitute a comma splice error. Also why there is sudden tense shift - the previous sentence reads, The film stars Sudeep, Nani, and Samantha Ruth Prabhu? It's not just this article, but I've observed this in a majority of our film articles. Is there a strong reason behind it or I'm missing something here?
  • Thanks for pointing out about the tense shift. The technical crew's work is not explicit, though you can sense it throughout; the cinematography is a good example. That was why past tense has been in use. I've hopefully fixed the comma splice error.
  • I'd suggest you to keep the cinematography and editing bits together. Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "Rajamouli revisited the idea after finishing ..." Not keen on 'revisited'. Maybe something on the lines of 'reconsidered'?
  • Reworded.
  • "The film received generally positive reviews" This! Aren't we experiencing a problem with critical response summaries of Indian films?
  • Removed the line. Hope the new one sounds good.
  • "It was screened at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival, the 2013 Shanghai International Film Festival, and the 2013 Madrid International Film Festival." Why not mention the year (or edition) of the first one?
  • I've mentioned it. Thanks for the heads up. :)
  • Why eighth Toronto, but 2013 Shanghai and 2013 Madrid? Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If i did mention it as 2013 Toronto, i felt that it would be a case of close repetition. I've numbered the Shanghai festival and left Madrid festival as it was.
  • "The idea for the film originated in the late 1990s when during a conversation with his son S. S. Rajamouli, Indian screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad joked about a housefly seeking revenge on a human" It's better to split this one into two.
  • I'm afraid that the continuity would take a beating. I have no clue where to break it.
  • Kinda agree, but the level of detailing seems too much for one sentence. But we can make use of semicolons. Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried doing that. Hope the result looks better.
  • So what happened to the English film?
  • The source suggests that the English film might have been shelved. But, making a change based on such assumption may be a case of WP:OR. What say?
  • "After completing Maryada Ramanna (2010), Rajamouli revisited the concept after thinking of directing a film that was distinct from any other" Sounds a bit vague. By 'any other' you mean films of the same genre/concept?
  • According to the source, Rajamouli said that he wanted to try something which "had never been tried by anyone".
  • Is there an explanation given by the director as to why he decided to film the project in two languages?
Rajamouli was asked the same question by Rediff. Slide 4 of the interview quotes him as saying, "From the word go it was a bi-lingual. The fly, the protagonist, doesn't speak so there is no dialogue half the time." Kailash29792 (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Apt is more of a showbiz cliche. Something like 'suitable' would be apt for the given context.
  • Done.
  • It's worth clarifying the language in which Bhakta Prahlada was made.
  • Done.
  • By 'styled the cast' you mean makeup?

Vensatry (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The source says "styling of the film". Changed it to overall styling. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • But what does it actually mean? Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From my past experience (Magadheera), i learnt that Rama Rajamouli basically looks after the costume designing (much like Nalini Sriram for Roja). I hence take the liberty to change it to costume design only.

@Vensatry: Thanks for the comments; they were very helpful. I hopefully have resolved the current ones and am looking forward for further comments if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Source check from Jaguar[edit]

Due to my temperamental internet connection at the moment, I only managed to spotcheck all of the sources leading up to 91. So far so good. However, I did spot one discrepancy:

"Makkhi's television-broadcast rights were sold to STAR Gold for ₹80 million" - neither ref 89 or 90 mentions it being sold for ₹80 million, unless I read it wrong. This was the only issue I could find so far. Very good work overall, I'm leaning to support.

JAGUAR  14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, ref 89 reads "Rs 8 crore". That is 80 million. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Turboliner[edit]

Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The Turboliners were a fleet of gas turbine trainsets employed by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, between 1973–2003. Their usage, especially latterly in the state of New York, was a matter of intense controversy in the US railfan community which previously led to stability problems in the article. I've been improving it since 2012 and it was promoted to Good Article in 2014. I've tried to avoid getting too far into the weeds on railroading terminology. Somehow after all these years this is my first FAC nomination and I acknowledge that the article may be a little short. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments ok I'll take a look and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
They were among the first new equipment purchased by Amtrak and represented an attempt by Amtrak to update its fleet with faster, more modern trains. - you've said "Amtrak" three times in the first two sentences. I wonder if the first mention of Amtrak" in this sentence can go....
Removed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think maybe a background section is needed before you launch into the trains - containing some material like the first sentence under the History section on the Amfleet page - just to give some context of how Amtrak was at the time and why they needed the trains. I'd move the first para of the Service section to here.
Excellent suggestion; I've added one. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Is the formatting right in the last sentence of the Design section?
It is not; fixed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
They were retired from service after one caught fire in Pennsylvania Station in New York on September 11, 1994. - presumably because the cars were deemed faulty? Adding some material here would be helpful on the findings and closure.
Information on the RTG-IIs is scant (or at least not online). Appears to be poor maintenance as much as anything. I've expanded it a little. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Additional equipment allowed Amtrak to add a frequency in late April - umm,what's a "frequency"?
Sorry, it's transport jargon for a round-trip. I've replaced the usage. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In 1998 Amtrak and the state of New York began.. - should "state" be capitalised here...we're referring to the government, right?
We're referring to the state, and apparently per the MOS it should be capitalized. I've changed it throughout. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Also are there any turboliners that have been kept for posterity anywhere? Museums etc. Be worth mentioning at the end...
Not officially, no. New York sold all of its RTLs for scrap. Amtrak sold its RTGs in the mid-1990s. I believe there's one out in a cornfield in the Midwest in private hands, but it's not open to the public and I haven't seen a reliable source discussing it. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback, sorry for the delay in responding. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Now I am the one who is late - ok, looking better. A query below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You mention in the lead they were sold for scrap in 2012, yet the last sentence does not say "for scrap". Some of the reasons (i.e. storage fees etc.) would be good to add too.
  • Thanks; added a source for the scrapping and for the storage costs. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I think I can tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose. I don't see any prose-clangers outstanding and suspect it is comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Support. The article says what it needs to say and no more, which should be a goal for any piece of writing. Two questions and one suggestion:

Is there any information about the riding characteristics of the trainsets?
Is there information about the economics of turbine power as opposed to diesel across a wide variety of speeds?
Please consider a statement at the end, or even a clause, such as ". . . ending turbine train service in the United States [North America?], if that is the case.

Kablammo (talk)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

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

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

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

  • Article doesn't explain the peculiar choice of releasing it in Jpn first. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Yes check.svg Done; Thank you so much for your comment. I added information regrading your point in "Background and development". Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there an estimate of total sales of the album? Or any certification anywhere? Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: All the information about charting and sales is included in the "Reception" section. Also, there's no certification for this album anywhere. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
14k seems kinda low. Is there an estimated total worldwide? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Nope, sorry. No material nor in Japanese or Romanian. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dan56[edit]

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

Comments from CaliforniaDreamsFan[edit]

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

These are just some points that I have noticed. It's good work, don't get me wrong, but small things like these are still big needs for a FAC. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Thank you so much for your review! Responded to all your comments. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera[edit]

  • Shouldn't the label in the infobox only list the record company from the initial release? In this case, being Victor?
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Adevărul should be italicized
Yes check.svg Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note A should actually be physically described in the "Track listing" section so it's complete
Yes check.svg Done written out Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The DVD release mentions a DVD format of Unlocked being released, yet there is no mention of it in the article
Yes check.svg Done mentioned about it in the "Background and development" section. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
More to come. Carbrera (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Carbrera: Everything done so far. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

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

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

2015 Formula One season[edit]

Nominator(s): Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive report of the 2015 season of the Formula One World Championship. I've helped this article being to GA status recently and through the rather high bar which was set for that promotion, I actually feel this is ready to be a Featured Article. Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96[edit]

Images
  • All images would be better off with alt text for accessibilty per WP:ALT
  • Already done I have added those just prior to your review. Tvx1 14:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
General
  • I note that you use a mixture of number and written format when you use numbers. You want to use a consistent from especially with numbers ten or over.
  • yellow tickY Possibly done. I have tackled those that were not in line with MOS:NUMERAL. It would be helpful if you would be more precise and state where (if any) problematic case still remain. Tvx1 15:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Three examples where its problematic:
  • "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a 7-year absence:"
  • "Lewis Hamilton had scored ninety-three points out of a possible one hundred, giving him a twenty-seven point lead"
  • " reducing the gap to Hamilton to forty-two points in the process, but fell out of a point-scoring position in Belgium after a tyre failure on the penultimate lap, dropping him to sixty-seven points behind the leader." MWright96 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the first one, but I really can't see what's problematic about the latter two. They satisfy multiple parts of MOS:NUMERAL
  • Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words.Green tickY
  • In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated.Green tickY
  • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures.Green tickY
  • Additionally the majority of the prose has numbers written out, except those that have to be spelt with numerals according to the MOS. Therefor, spelling those two cases with numerals would make them out of step with the rest of the article. I really can't see your problem here. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Driver changes
  • "They hired the former Caterham driver Will Stevens" - employed
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the 2014 European Formula Three third-place finisher Max Verstappen. Verstappen became" - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "while Bianchi was in a coma at the start of the season and ultimately died from injuries sustained at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix." - Bianchi should have his full name and wikilink it
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Safety innovations
  • Pits should be changed to pit lane for non-Formula One readers
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Penalties
  • "and if such a grid place penalty was imposed and the driver's grid position was such that it could not be applied in full," - change grid to start to avoid reptition
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikilink formation lap
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Pre-season
  • "Manor Marussia elected to abandon those plans in favor of developing the car for the following season" - favour
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Opening rounds
  • "both cars qualified ahead of only the Manor Marussias and eventually retired." - Manor Marussia cars
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
European and Canadian rounds
  • "Rosberg and Sebastian Vettel did not pit" - make pit stops
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "with 3 successive 1–2 finishes," I think this is better with three successive first and second finishes
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Asian, Russian and American rounds
  • "Vettel capitalised on the results with a third-place and second-place finish, respectively," - This sounds better Vettel captalised on the results with third and second-place finishes respectively
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Awards
  • Fix the link for Blanchimont corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Blanchimont
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
References
  • I was told at my 2007 Coca-Cola 600 FA nomination that the publisher or works where the publisher name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example fn 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) should be omitted
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I can see that only some of this have been done. e.g. This specially applies to all references by BBC Sport, Formula1.com, The Guardian, Sky Sports. See how I referenced sources in 2014 Japanese Grand Prix
  • It would be easier if you just list the numbers of the refs which need to be fixed. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever. I also don't understand your issue with the Sky Sports ones. The work and publisher have clearly different content. Sky Sports is just a part of British Sky Broadcasting which is active in other area's to. Also I don't see what's wrong with the one Guardian ref. It doesn't use both a work and publisher parameter. Anyway, I'll do the BBC and Formula1 refs. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have done the BBC and Formula1 refs and some others. I think I also identified and the fixed the Guardian ref you mentioned.Tvx1 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Refs 28 and 34 should have the work as Sky Sports
  • The publication date for Reference 75 should be spelt as 25 November 2014 for consistency.
  • Yes check.svg Done Tvx1 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Also is PlanetF1.com a reliable source?
  • Yes check.svg Replaced Tvx1 16:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That's my lot. I may be have a second look if I got the time. MWright96 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

MWright96, can you make a status report? Tvx1 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tvx1: Overall it looks a little better. My second lot of comments will be up later. Also since it's your first FAC nomination, it would be a good idea to have a look at this mentoring scheme to help you better the chances of this article passing without being failed due to a lack of response. MWright96 (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
MWright96 I have fixed some and left some replies. Can you have another look? Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Tvx1 I have no more issues I can point out. I would like to hear from other reviewers before I make a vote. MWright96 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

I think the most important thing was to make sure that all of the sources verified the content in the article (something I used to struggle with), but I took extra liberties to make sure that I got it right while developing this for GA. In particular, I basically wrote the development and reception sections from scratch, so I found sourcing it quite easy as I had everything there (including the physical magazines). I know that comprehensiveness is more of an issue for the FA criteria, and minor issues on prose would definitely be tackled in the review. Anyway, I'll be happy to address these issues! JAGUAR  20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

  • 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.
  • Done. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Done, and I went with just 'third 3D game', although original tends to mean that it is the third main 3D game. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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"
  • Done, although it was released in Europe in 2016. JAGUAR  20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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"?
  • I think a game winning a BAFTA is very significant, and the article links to the charity itself. I've rephrased this slightly so hopefully it's clearer. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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
  • Removed. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

  • 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
  • Done. JAGUAR  20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Removed the bit about the engine. It's explained thoroughly in development. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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?
  • I'm not sure, I looked it up on its wiki and found that one of the domes had no boss for no particular reason. The reason for this isn't covered in any RS, although the manual mentions it. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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".
  • Thanks, done. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • I linked it. Seems better that way JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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..."
  • Yeah, it's a cursor. I should have been clearer. Fixed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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?
  • Added. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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).
  • Good catch, removed bee link and added others. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Removed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Good catch, I see how that sounds confusing. Fixed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Plot

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

Development

  • 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.
  • I've added the citations in the article, and should hopefully begin to expand the development using those sources you gave me. Thanks for that! JAGUAR  14:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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
  • I should remember to use Super Mario when mentioning the series. JAGUAR  14:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • I couldn't even find him in the game's manual, so I removed that line. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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?
  • Kondo was technically in charge of the soundtrack although Yokota did the majority of the work. The source you gave me mentioned that he acted as sound supervisor, so I mentioned that. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Changed to Super Mario. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception

  • 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.
  • Removed all, with the exception of the awards (for now?) JAGUAR  15:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Rephrased. Yup I sent Black and White to GA ;-D Would I need to say what 97% equates to? The introduction states that the game received critical acclaim and I think that a reader could gather that 97% based on 74 reviews means that it was well received. I'm not too sure on this, so let me know if you want it rephrased further. JAGUAR  15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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"
  • Good idea. I tried mixing it up throughout. JAGUAR  15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 1UP.com, not just 1UP.
  • Fixed. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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
  • I think it still belongs in that paragraph as it covers all things audio-related, whereas putting it in another paragraph would seem even more out of place. To help matters, I rephrased the introduction to "The soundtrack and audio were well received by critics" and moved the lack of voice acting criticism to the end. Hope that helps. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Organisational purposes; I thought it looked weird having a 'listy' sentence in the same paragraph as one filled with prose. I can merge it if you think it's best. Is it really necessary to remove GameRankings here even if it's being used for awards and not an aggregate score? I'm not sure myself. JAGUAR  23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Czar: I know that czar knows a lot more than me on when GameRankings should be used! Sorry to ping you, do you think it's OK if GameRankings should be used for citing awards and not aggregate scores I think that being the highest ranking game of the site should also be a significant mention. JAGUAR  15:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    (Ping me anytime) I'd distinguish between when editors bestow an award and when an item tops a list, but that's editorial discretion. In this case, GameRankings didn't give a GOTY award, so I'd recast the sentence as journalists who named the game the best of the year and then treat the aggregators and any other list-making groups separately. Definitely worth including, but in a separate sentence and not as a GOTY "award". czar 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I'm okay with what Czar suggested. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I've moved the GameRankings mention to the end and separated it from the other GOTY awards. JAGUAR  16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Mainly because it was the only source which mentioned a date, I think.
  • 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
  • Rephrased. JAGUAR  16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

  • U R MR GAY. This should be in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Wow that is such a trivial thing to place in an article I have no clue why you think it should be used. GamerPro64 14:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I was about to say that I don't think it would be worth mentioning. JAGUAR  14:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
"Trivial"? It was huge at the time. Here are more reliable sources. I am asking for one sentence in the article about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Just because it was used on sites like Kotaku doesn't mean it isn't trivial. What does it add to the article? What does it do that will help improve the article? GamerPro64 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This nasty personal attack followed by deletion of my legitimate opposition reflects very badly on the nominator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You seriously want to add a sentence about "U R MR GAY" in this article? I thought you were joking. It's pointless, trivial, and isn't worth mentioning. JAGUAR  17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
"I thought you were joking." That doesn't explain why you called me a "fucking moron". Several reliable third-party sources have described it. That makes it non-trivial. Also, I expected to see it mentioned in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Where do you want this in the article, then? In the development section? Reception? And what is it going to look like? Upon release, some fans reported that the stars aligned on the game's cover art read out "U R MR GAY". I'm not putting a derogatory and infelicitous statement anywhere in this article, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't add any value. It's not worth it. It's trivial. It's almost like a joke. And another thing that's a joke is the fact that you had the nerve to oppose this FAC because I refused to put "U R MR GAY" in this article. Nevermind the fact that I've spent over a dozen hours of my time writing, researching and putting the effort into building this article up to an FA standard only to get derailed by somebody like you. I honestly thought you were trolling. Just because reliable sources cover it doesn't make it non trivial. Many reliable sources at WP:VG/S like IGN, Polygon and Kotaku also cover many trivial things like what the colour of a new Pokemon is going to be or a journalist's thoughts of a game's lore. It doesn't make it a pre-requisite reason to add something in an article. I thought that you were an intelligent person but the fact that your oppose read "It makes me sad that this glaring omission has spoilt an otherwise excellent article. I was expecting to read about this phenomenon in Wikipedia's article" made it look like you were tormenting. "U R MR GAY" is a glaring omission and a phenomenon, is it? JAGUAR  12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
While I don't condone Jaguar's personal attack-- Axl, your request for "U R MR GAY" was challenged with "why is it notable?" and "what does it add?" and you immediately jumped to opposing the FA nomination. This was an extremely petulant move. "U R MR GAY" was already determined to be coincidental and non-notable through previous consensus. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
When multiple independent reliable sources describe a phenomenon, that makes it notable. Asking "what makes it notable?" after these references have been clearly linked is... not sensible.
I still believe that a sentence about this should be in the article, and I stand by my opposition. If the community consensus is against me, I shall of course submit to the consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: thank you for your comments! I should have hopefully addressed everything above. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments – Although I've never played this game, I've been known to take on a Mario platformer from time to time. I haven't read through much of the article yet, but here are a few initial thoughts:

  • This might be a British English thing, but is "instalment" meant to have only one l?
  • Yep, 'instalment' with one 'l' is used everywhere outside the US JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "with different variations of gravity being the central element of gameplay." Since this is one of those "noun-plus -ing" connectors that us prose people don't really like, how would you feel about dropping "being" altogether?
  • So it would just read with different variations of gravity the central element of gameplay? I've removed "being", I hope it sounds OK. JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The concept for the game's use of spherical platforms were first conceptualized...". "were" → "was", since this refers to the concept (singular), not the platforms themselves (plural).
  • Thanks, fixed JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The U R MR GAY stuff seems like indiscriminate information for this article, at least in my view. Not everything published in reliable sources should be included in articles, and I wouldn't expect to see cover art issues be prominently mentioned, unless there's some new video game style standard I'm unaware of. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: I agree, I don't think it's worth mentioning in the first place. Anyway, thank you for your comments! I've addressed all of your points above. JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Development: "desired that one its distinguishing features" needs "of" after "one", I reckon.
  • Added, I think that was a mistake. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I doubt that gravity needs a link, since that is such a basic concept.
  • Removed. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The grammar in "Iwata noted an increasing number of consumers to give up during a video game" doesn't seem to be that great. Maybe try "giving up" in the middle?
  • Added. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't a 1-Up link be somewhere in the gameplay section instead, where its first mention is?
  • Well spotted, fixed JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "and devised ways on how they should incorporate an idea into the game and make it the most entertaining." The beginning of this bit is a little wordy, and the "most entertaining" part doesn't make sense (most entertaining what). How about "and devised ways to incorporate an idea into the game and make it entertaining (as entertaining as possible?)" instead, or some variant of that?
  • I went with your suggestion, but added "more entertaining" at the end. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove "the" from "that the Super Mario Galaxy's co-operative mode".
  • Fixed JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Music: Minor, but refs 28 and 35 could be reversed to numerical order.
  • Done. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Super Mario Bros. has a double period at the end. You just need the one from the game's title.
  • The Super Mario Bros. title has a full stop in itself, but I removed it anyway as I know it will only cause confusion with more readers. I thought Nights into Dreams... was bad enough. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I still see this one in the article. It's in the second paragraph of Music, in case there was another one I didn't notice. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Didn't spot that, removed. Thanks. JAGUAR  22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If we don't have a Donkey Kong Jungle Beat link earlier, please consider adding one here.
  • There was already one in the development section JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception: Super Mario Sunshine probably doesn't need the link, since there was one earlier.
  • Removed JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Same for Super Mario 64.
  • Removed JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The gameplay ... were also praised." "were" → "was". That word is referring to the gameplay itself, not the specific elements I skipped over; therefore it should be in singular tense. If it was "gameplay element" or similar, then you could get away with a plural.
  • Fixed. A mistake on my part. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sequel: Remove "the" before Famitsu.
  • Done JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Add "was" before "originally called Super Mario Galaxy More". Giants2008 (Talk) 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your comments. And sorry for the delay, I've been having internet problems lately. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – The article seems to be comprehensive for its field, and I'm satisfied with the writing after the above fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from ThomasO1989[edit]

I've got more comments on the way, but I can finish those up later tonight or this weekend.

Gameplay

  • Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space, where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies. This sentence reads a little funny. Maybe change "from galaxy to galaxy" to "to different galaxies"? The "completing levels in galaxies" is a bit redundant, how about "earned by completing missions". You could then quickly cover one or two types of missions ("defeating a boss" or "reaching a particular area").
  • Thanks, I went with all of your suggestions. Not sure if "missions" are applicable for the genre of this game but it sounds better that way. JAGUAR  13:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Mario is given new moves that take advantage of the Wii Remote's pointer and motion sensing. I think it might make sense to cut out this part of the sentence altogether and mention where the Wii Remote's functions are used only when it's the main point. So in this paragraph, you may have like "The player controls the Star Pointer, a cursor that appears on-screen, with the Wii Remote pointer". Since the use of motion controls used to do a spin is explicitly brought up in Development, mention them in the second paragraph when talking about the spin.
  • Cut and rephrased. I hope I got this right. JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • the Star Pointer is used to blow air at it to influence the direction and speed it moves. This sentence seems a bit wordy, though I believe it's been there for years. Maybe use something simple, like the Star Pointer is used to push the bubble around.
  • Done. JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Someone else could chime in, but should adverbs like "firstly", "secondly", and "thirdly" be used in formal writing?
  • I think it sounds formal? I changed them anyway, with the exception of "secondly" (I think that should be fine). JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. Add the word "each" to imply that the power-ups are different and the word "temporary" (or a variation thereof) to imply they're not permanent.
  • Well spotted, added! JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Instant death can occur by being swallowed by quicksand or dark matter; falling into bottomless pits, which either consist of black holes or leaving a planet's gravitational pull and falling into space; getting crushed between objects; losing a race against a non-player character; or other special challenges. Is it truly necessary to list all potential ways Mario could die?
  • Probably not, so I cut down on a few. JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Plot

This section could use some trimming. Not that it's overly long, it just seems a bit wordy, like it's describing certain cutscenes in more detail than what is necessary. I can help out with this one if you'd like.

That would be appreciated! I don't think it's too long, in fact I think it's just about right for a game like this since it's not plot-heavy. Anyway, I'll try and cut it down slightly. JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Development

My issues with this section stem from certain points being presented a bit haphazardly... it could use some re-arranging. There is also many passive sentences.

  • Takeo Shimizu, the game's producer and programmer, noted that the most basic action in a 3D action game was to simply run, and concluded that the easiest way to attack was to "spin", not jump. Move this sentence before the immediately preceding one, since it is directly related to why spin was done in the first place.
  • Done. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • the "spin" was changed to be activated through shaking the latter. Technically both controllers' sensing activate the spin, so this should be changed.
  • The "spin" is only activated through shaking the Wii Remote, not the Nunchuk? JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the player can actually shake either controller to activate Mario's spin, not just the Wii Remote.-- ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding this decision, Koizumi said that he wanted... You could do away with "Regarding this decision" since the topic is still on Koizumi.
  • Done. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, Iwata added that decreasing... Add "retrospectively" and remove "furthermore".
  • Added. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The images are pretty, but what do they add to the article? They just seem decorative.
  • I think that they're important as they display key factors of the gameplay/development and show the reader what the developer's focus was. The top image shows a galaxy and the bottom image shows a spherical planetoid, with both featuring prominently throughout the article. I'd prefer to keep them, but it would be a shame to lose them. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this. I don't think a picture of outer space is necessary to show that the developer's focus was on space anymore than Super Mario Sunshine needs a picture of water, or Pikmin a picture of a garden. The "spherical planetoid" is just a panoramic image, not an actual planetoid. It would make more sense to include them if these exact pictures inspired the gameplay, art, or story. A good example is the picture of "The Swing" used in the article Tangled, since the artist's work was actually used as a direct reference. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You make some good points, so I removed the images from development. JAGUAR  20:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the paragraph on the level design should be combined with the initial idea to use spherical platforms in the first place (first paragraph) since they are directly related.
  • Like this? Won't that make it too long? I don't understand JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I do think they can be merged into a subsection, "Design", like what is done with Music. Some information could also be cut or condensed. I can write up a draft in my sandbox and present it for comments. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A "Design" subsection before the music section? I'll try something in a minute. I'm not sure if it would its chronological order. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Music

  • The task of creating the game's sound effects [...] like they were having that experience. This reads a little too long and doesn't paraphrase the source well. Here is a suggested condensed version: The game originally heavily utilized the Wii Remote speaker for "all sorts of sound [effects]", but Masafumi Kawamura, the game's sound director, decided they were redundant when played in tangent with those from the television. Kawamura decided to restrict Wii Remote sound effects to those triggered by Mario's actions, such as hitting an enemy, feeling that it better immersed the player.
  • Thank you! I went with that. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@ThomasO1989: thank you for your review! I've tried to address everything but I didn't understand a couple of your points, such as merging the level design paragraph into the first and the "spin" attack sentence, as the attack itself is accomplished by shaking only one of the controllers, not both. I prefer to keep the images as they show significant symbolism, but I'll remove them if I must. Sorry for coming to this review late, as I've been very busy with RL as well as sorting out a grant I applied on Wikimedia. If you have more comments, I'll be happy to address them. Thanks again! JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's already an article deserving to be an FA but there are somethings I would like to point out:
    • There are some references that are used about four times. I would suggest archiving them but that's not an issue (I'm looking at you 1UP)
      • I archived 1UP through WebCite as well as the more prominently used ones. It would be a nightmare if they all expired. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The plot section is unreferenced. I know that's not relevant, but could the "Super Mario Galaxy instruction manual" be used to reference some parts?
      • The manual only mentions the prologue, so I sourced whatever I could from it. I know that sourcing the plot isn't usually required (thank god), but it wouldn't hurt to have a citation or two in there. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Lastly references 79 and 80 look a bit redundant since Metacritic already has all the review.
      • Well spotted! Removed both. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway good with the article, I really hope it becomes a FA. Also, if you have free time could you provide feedback to my own FAN? It's a bit inactive. Cheers.

@Tintor2: thank you for the comments! I promise to take a look at your FAC soon, I've been held up with other matters lately. I have addressed everything you mentioned above. I've archived the more important references, and sourced some parts of the plot via the manual. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Well then, now you have my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 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 sf-encyclopedia.com 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)

Actually, nothing prose-wise stands out that needs fixing. Looks comprehensive so support, an engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Will this stay open? I just found this nomination and maybe I can add my 2 cents shortly. Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    Hekerui, it will probably be open for a bit longer at least since there's been no image review yet. Please do add any comments you have -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    Hi Mike, my cold prevents me from doing this properly, I'm sorry. Hekerui (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

I shall perform an image review later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, shame on me for the delay:
  • File:Weird Tales March 1942.jpg: Free image. Putting the cover of a magazine at the top of the article for that magazine seems pertinent to me. I see a copyright registration that apparently refers to this magazine as well as some entries referring to this magazine on the pages linked here. This is a very complex aspect of copyright; I sort of want a second opinion on the status of this image.
    The first link is to a listing of the original copyright; it was definitely copyrighted, but it wasn't renewed. The second link shows (as far as I can tell) individual items in the magazine having copyright renewed, but not the cover. Some of the magazines were renewed and some were not -- there's a list on the article talk page I made when I searched all the renewal books. I think that means this one is OK. You ask in several places below what was done to verify the copyright tags; in each case I relied on the 28-year copyright renewals, so I won't reply below to every separate question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Weird Tales May 1934.jpg: Free image on Commons. I am not sure why the image is being listed in that section, the only thing it has in common with the section is the time described. Seems like the copyright renewal, if it existed, is not in an online accessible place.
    Yes, the time matches -- I wanted to illustrate the look of the magazine at that time. Rather than respond individually below to your questions about particular significance of image choice in certain cases, let me just say that the free images that don't illustrate specific discussions were chosen to illustrate the time period. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Weird Tales March 1923.jpg: Free image on Commons. Seems like it is pertinent to show the first cover of the work when the story is explicitly discussed in the section.
  • File:Weird Tales September 1937.jpg: Free image on Commons. There is a section farther down which explicitly discusses the nudity that this author employed, so it seems pertinent.
  • File:Weird Tales December 1936.jpg: Free image on Commons. Is there some special significance to this image that it has been included?
  • File:Virgil Finlay Weird Tales October 1938 Horns of Elfland.png: Free image on Commons. The author of this image is specifically discussed in this section, as is the image, so it seems pertinent. What kind of research was done to validate this copyright tag?
  • File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg437 Homocidal Diary.png: Free image on Commons, derived from another file. It's a bit unclear why this cover is in the article. What was done to verify the copyright tag?
  • File:Weird Tales January 1938.jpg: Free image on Commons. There is discussion in the section about content involving nudity, so it seems pertinent there.
  • File:Weird Tales November 1941.jpg: Free image on Commons. Does this cover illustrate something specific about that era in the magazine's history?
  • File:Weird Tales May 1952.jpg: Free image on Commons. Does this cover illustrate something specific about that era in the magazine's history?
  • Gallery in the Legacy section: Free images on Commons. Mayhaps this gallery should be supplemented with some discussion on what it illustrates. How were the copyright tags there verified?
    The artists are all mentioned in the discussion of interior art, so I thought this would be a useful gallery. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg419 Shunned House.png: Free image on Commons derived from other file. Seems a bit decorative there. What was done to verify the copyright status?
    It's decorative there, but there was white space and I thought an interior illustration would be a nice way to fill it. I picked this particular illustration because Weinberg quotes a Lovecraft collector who regards the illustration as the finest magazine illustration for any of Lovecraft's stories, but I don't think the collector is a notable individual so I didn't mention that in the caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:US and Canadian Weird Tales November 1935 Brundage.jpg: Free image on Commons. It shows differences between US and Canadian editions, in a section about that topic so it seems pertinent. What was done to verify the copyright status?
In summa, (tracking down) copyright registration is a black spot for me so I can't definitively comment on the copyright status of these images. I wonder, did any of these issues have a copyright notice? Non-copyright wise these images need ALT text for accessibility reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll add the ALT text and note here when I've done it. Thanks very much for doing the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus: ALT text now added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 25 September 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)
      • See also, for example, this similar photo - ONI routinely acquired photos of foreign ships in commission for intelligence and recognition purposes. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse (His Majesty's Ship "Charles the Great")" and "Charlemagne (spelled Karl der Grosse in German)" Why do you give two different English versions of the namesake?
    • "Charles the Great" is the more direct translation, but I guess that's unnecessary.
  • "aground in the lower Elbe." Perhaps add "river" for clarity. You also link the river twice.
    • Good idea
  • "Charlemagne (spelled Karl der Grosse in German)" It isn't really a different "spelling" as such. Charles the Great is spelled Karl der Grosse, but Charlemagne is a different version of the name, you could say.
    • Charlemagne is just the French spelling, so it's arguably correct, but either way I think it's redundant, so I removed it.
  • "in the Jade." What does this mean?
  • It doesn't seem that the Danish town and area Skagen is referred to as "the Skagen" anywhere outside this article?
    • The word now refers to the town, but it used to refer to the peninsula and the surrounding waters, and it is used elsewhere - see for instance this book or this one. Wikipedia tends to favor current usage, but it's not wrong to
  • "By 1908, the new "all-big-gun" dreadnought battleships were entering service. As the ship was completely obsolete" None of this is stated in the article body.
    • Yeah, that bit got lost when I rewrote the article. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • You there, Parsecboy? FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah - it was Labor Day weekend here in the US, so I wasn't around to take care of things here. Should all be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good to me then, happy Labor Day (if that's what you say)! FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps[edit]

Feel free to ignore anything here. I have only commented on two FACs before and on one of those my remarks were not well received. Some of the prose issues I've highlighted are the same things I have trouble with so apologies if my alternative suggestions aren't any better.--Ykraps (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • "11,785t" Is that tons (imperial) or tonnes (metric)?
    • "t" is the symbol for tonnes, but linked for clarity.
  • "Normal crew" sounds odd. What about usual complement?
  • Not sure about construction coming under service particularly as she wasn’t commissioned until 1902 so strictly speaking not in service. What about having the previous heading as design and construction?
    • Narrative-wise, it makes more sense to talk about it with the service history, since it's all part of the life of the ship. And I don't generally like splitting off single paragraphs into their own section.
      Okay, I guess that's a reasonable argument.
  • "She was ordered under the contract name "B" as a new ship of the fleet. The ship's keel was laid on 17 September 1898 at the Blohm & Voss in Hamburg under yard number 136.[1][4] She was the first capital ship to be built by the yard, and the second warship of any type..." Two sentences together starting "she" sounds awkward.
    • There's actually one between them that starts with "The ship's..."
      Okay, missed that.
  • I appreciate the ship went on a lot of manouvres but, "Autumn maneuvers, which began in the Baltic..", "The maneuvers concluded in the North Sea...", "The autumn maneuvers consisted of a blockade..." Can we substitute manouvres for "operations" or "excercises" anywhere?
    • There are already a few "exercises" and "operations" in that paragraph - there's only a limited number of words to be substituted, so some repetition is going to happen, one way or the other.
      Agreed. It's something I find a problem too. Just thought it was worth another look.
  • And, "Kaiser Karl der Grosse participated in an exercise in the Skagerrak from 11 to 21 January 1904. Squadron exercises followed from 8 to 17 March. A major fleet exercise took place in the North Sea in May", uses excercises three times in a row. What about, "Kaiser Karl der Grosse participated in an exercises in the Skagerrak from 11 to 21 January 1904, with her squadron from 8 to 17 March and with the fleet in the North Sea in May."? Or similar?
    • That sounds fine to me.
  • "The I Squadron anchored in Vlissingen the following day. There, the ships were visited by Queen Wilhelmina. The I Squadron remained in Vlissingen until 20 July, when they departed for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet. The squadron stopped in Molde, Norway, on 29 July, while the other units went to other ports". What about, "The I Squadron anchored in Vlissingen the following day where the ships were visited by Queen Wilhelmina. Departing on 20 July for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet, the squadron stopped in Molde, Norway, nine days later while the other units went to other ports"?
    • Works for me.
  • "The fleet undertook a heavier training schedule in 1906 than in previous years. The ships were occupied with individual, division and squadron exercises throughout April. Starting on 13 May, major fleet exercises took place in the North Sea and lasted until 8 June with a cruise around the Skagen into the Baltic.[17] The fleet began its usual summer cruise to Norway in mid-July. Kaiser Karl der Grosse and the I Squadron anchored in Molde, where they were joined on 21 July by Wilhelm II aboard the steamer SS Hamburg. The fleet was present for the birthday of Norwegian King Haakon VII on 3 August. The German ships departed the following day for Helgoland, to join exercises being conducted there. The fleet was back in Kiel by 15 August, where preparations for the autumn maneuvers began". Half the sentences here begin, "The fleet..." which sounds a little repetitive. What about, "A heavier training schedule than in previous years was undertaken in 1906. The ships were occupied with individual, division and squadron exercises throughout April. Starting on 13 May, major fleet exercises took place in the North Sea and lasted until 8 June with a cruise around the Skagen into the Baltic[17] followed by the usual summer cruise to Norway in mid-July. Kaiser Karl der Grosse and the I Squadron anchored in Molde, where they were joined on 21 July by Wilhelm II aboard the steamer SS Hamburg. The fleet was present for the birthday of Norwegian King Haakon VII on 3 August then departed the following day for Helgoland, to join exercises being conducted there. The German ships were back in Kiel by 15 August, where preparations for the autumn maneuvers began".
    • This is similar to the issue with maneuver/exercise/operation above - one of the things I've been trying to avoid is "follow/ed/ing", which is already in that paragraph once (and several other times throughout the article), and you rewrote one of the "the fleet" bits to include a "followed". In any event, I've removed a couple of "the fleet"s - see if that works for you. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
      Okay, just a suggestion. Your recent edits are an improvement.
  • "In 1903, the fleet, which was composed of only one squadron of battleships, was reorganized as the 'Active Battle Fleet'". I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Are you saying there was only a single squadron of battleships within the fleet, or are you saying the squadron of battleships was the fleet?
    • In a word, yes. The fleet also included cruisers, torpedo boats, and such, but in terms of what counted, the battleships were the fleet. See if what I added helps with clarity. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
      I think that's much clearer, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from auntieruth[edit]

  • In typical high-handed fashion, I've made three minor grammatical corrections (commas and changed an adjective to its different form). If you are unhappy, easy to revert.
    • All seem fine to me, thanks Ruth.
  • I could not find the (linked) reference to Kiel, only the link to Kiel Regatta. There are several references to the city, and I think it should have a link.
    • A good idea.
  • Very fine article and I was pleased to read it. I'm wondering now if there should be a push to make that arms race thingie that Kaiser Bill and the English went through into a Featured article....
    • Yeah, we probably should at some point. I wonder if Sturmvogel would be interested in working on it with me, having written a number of articles on the British ships. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I'll do an edit on it if you want. For the big picture..... auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Support auntieruth (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

  • "an accidental grounding delayed her completion" Is their a more full story you know of? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There's more detail in the body of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 24 September 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 eyes...so 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)

Having a bit of trouble as I can't find the artist's date of death, which appears to be necessary for this template... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
My searches have also thrown up nothing. How frustrating; finding any details would probably be very tricky. I would not be personally too worried about you simply tagging it with {{PD-old-70}}. If you want to be extra sure, you could upload it locally and tag it with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. It's definitely PD in the US, which is enough for enwp, but not, alone, enough for Commons. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
have left it with {{PD-old-70}}. Not a fan of separate en wiki uploads.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and minor comments The standard is what we have come to expect from the mushroom men, just a couple of very minor points
  • many alternate scientific names— I know this is acceptable in NAm, but "alternative" would grate less to us poor Brits.
ok added the extra letters Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe my stupidity, but I'm unclear if a single fruit body is a pig's ear or a pig's ear
ummm, the two choices you offered were identical.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

ok added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments from Cwmhiraeth - Very nice; a (very) few thoughts:
  • "The upper surface or cap is orangish-brown to lilac, while its lower spore-bearing surface ..." - The first half of this sentence uses the definite article but the second part refers to "its".
twaeked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The specific epithet—derived from the Latin word clava (club) and meaning "club-shaped"—refers to the shape of young fruit bodies." - This sentence sits rather out of place in its paragraph, - the etymology in the midst of the taxonomy.
It's after where the word clavatus was coined. Can you think of a better place? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Gomphus clavatus (Pers.: Fr.) Gray. A 1987 revision" - Its rather awkward having the end of one sentence and the beginning of another in this series of letters, numbers and punctuation marks.
Sigh, I agree in part, yet rearranging the sentences around this makes them sound awkward too.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That's all I noticed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am happy with your responses to my comments and now Support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Very nice too! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 29 September 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)

@David Fuchs: Just in case you forgot Face-smile.svg. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Having gone through the article I think the biggest issue is it still needs a touchup on the prose front. There's just a lot of stilted language, with explanations for what things are rather ungainly shoved in, for example The V.A.T.S. system carry over from the main game. V.A.T.S. slows the real-time combat—repetitious phrasing, "VATS slows the real-time combat" is hardly illuminating. The article really needs a copyedit from someone capable who hasn't touched the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 18 September 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.

Comments from J Milburn that have since been addressed
  • "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?
    I suppose my question is why we're talking about VATS and Power Armour and SPECIAL and whatnot at all. The information seems very specific; in this article, we need to get a general idea of how gameplay works in Fallout 4 and a specific idea of what the gameplay is in this expansion (and/or how the gameplay in this expansion differs from the gameplay in Fallout 4). This seems to be specific information about gameplay which is not unique to this expansion and nor is it necessary to understand this expansion. Or am I going wrong somewhere? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    @J Milburn: I included the information about the vital parts of the base game because it was suggested by Czar in the first peer review:
    Part of the nature of a standalone DLC article is that you'll need sources from the original article to explain the basic gameplay. You should assume that readers have only a cursory knowledge of video games but want to know about this topic, so they likely don't know much about Fallout 4 and would need to know its basic gameplay to understand what Far Harbor adds. In terms of being true to the sources, I would preface such a recap as: "Far Harbor is an expansion of the main game, Fallout 4. It builds upon the basic game, which ..." so it's clear that the basic game explanation can come from sources about the basic game.
    along with: Work from the assumption that the reader is competent but doesn't know anything about Fallout—what is the game about? What do you do? What kinds of mechanics does it have? It only needs to be cursory and you can direct them back at F4's article for more info, but it should at least tell you how the game plays—it's not exempt from that simply because it's an article that expands on the original.
    I read those messages as a sort of "try to include basic information on the base game's mechanics as the reader may not know anything about Fallout". Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    I agree entirely with Czar; I'm just not convinced that this is what you're doing. Let's try it like this; in order to understand what Ned Flanders adds to The Simpsons, I need to know a bit about Springfield, I need to know a bit about the Simpson family, I need to know a bit about the kind of humour there is on The Simpsons, I need to know a good bit about Homer, and I need to have an idea of the role religion plays in the series. I don't need to know anything about Springfield Elementary School or the Springfield Power Plant. If I want to know about Ralph Wiggum, I'm going to need to know a bit about Springfield Elementary, but very little about Homer and nothing about religion. If I want to know about Smithers, I need to know about the Power Plant. And so on. So, if we're writing about Far Habor, we have to ask what in the base game we need to know about to get why Far Habor matters and what it does. Do we need to know about Springfield Elementary? The Power Plant? Both? Neither? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    @J Milburn: Hmm, fair enough. I think the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. section can be removed because it's early-game Fallout stuff, but I think the V.A.T.S. and Pip-boy can stay because during combat [in Far Harbor], V.A.T.S. still plays a big role. The Pip-boy is used in Far Harbor for the map feature (example source) and the player will receive a message on the Pip-boy when they can visit it (source. I'll update the article accordingly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Weapons can also be shot at, disarming them." One does not disarm weapons, one disarms an opponent of weapons.
    Fixed.
  • "Unlike the previous iterations" Of what?
    Fixed.
  • "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.
    Fixed.
  • 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.
    Expanded.
  • "Children of Atom's base of Operations" operations?
    Fixed.
  • "three main Factions there and let them decide their fate themselves" Capital F? Also, the "their" is ambiguous.
    Fixed.
  • "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."
    Reworded.
  • "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.
    Reworded.
  • "and didn't turn out as they planned" Informal, ambiguous. Also, whose feedback? Players'?
    Reworded.
  • "the game worked better." Informal
    Reworded.
  • " 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.
    Fixed.

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)
@J Milburn: In your opinion, have all the issues you mentioned been addressed? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(undent) Looking again, even in the lead, I'm not convinced that the first person/third person and VATS details are portrayed well. They come across as trivial details, and the fact you're talking about VATS's effect on combat before you've mentioned combat in its own right is a bit weird. The gameplay section a bit better, but I wonder why you jump into the some of the details (like VATS) without giving more basic info; dude in post-apocalypse landscape stomping baddies, fleeing from monsters, collecting stuff, doing quests, making friends. Some more specific bits:

  • You mention the lazers in the lead, but not the building blocks.
  • V.A.T.S. or V.A.T.S?
  • You need to explain somewhere what a synth is. A half-line description of the Church of Atom/Atom wouldn't hurt, either.
  • "start a war with Acadia" do you perhaps mean something like "trigger a war between the Harbormen and Acadia"?
  • "The Institute will send agents to reclaim the synths, while the Brotherhood of Steel will launch an expedition to exterminate them. The Railroad will send an operative to make contact with Acadia, though Acadia will reject their help." You're going to need to explain who/what The Institute, the Brotherhood of Steel and The Railroad are.
  • "dungeon" is jargon (I know I mentioned this above- I know what it means, but I'm a roleplayer. How about "self-contained quest locations"? That's a slightly more explanatory and formal way to say what you say.)
  • "Reviewers highly praised the addition of new quests but disliked the puzzle sections" That seems to just repeat what you said in the previous paragraph.
    How do you suggest the paragraph be started? I don't have any ideas on how it could be changed.
  • This isn't a view universally shared, but I find that "Game Revolution similarly expressed", "Metro liked" and "Game Revolution admired" is clumsy/colloquial. Publications don't express views and like/dislike things; writers do.
  • "Reviewers were also divided over the storyline: Game Revolution admired the story and new characters,[27] while Peter Brown found it uninteresting.[29] Game Revolution admired the storyline and new characters.[27]" Repetition!
    Good catch.
  • "Some reviewers had problems with the expansion's repetitiveness" As you've already said!
    I removed or changed all mentions of it being repetitive so that it's first mentioned in that paragraph.
  • From checking references, I see that the puzzles were new to Far Habor, and not something in the main game; this could be made clearer!
    Done, but I don't think it's worded too well.
  • "was disappointed that it was somewhat wasted" This suggests that we are endorsing that it was wasted, not something we can do in Wikipedia's neutral voice
    Fixed, I think.
  • Italics for websites or not? I personally prefer not to; YMMV.
    I typically add italics for all websites. I've made it consistent to this way.

Much better, but not there yet, for me. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I've fixed the majority of the newly mentioned issues, but I'm not entirely sure how to rework the synopsis sections. @Prisonermonkeys and Shadeblade11: Pinging the users who worked on that section the most. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Anarchyte — I will have a look when I get a chance, but if I am honest, I am not optimistic; I feel that the prose of the article as a whole needs work. To my mind, it lacks the flair that a GA/FA needs. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:10, 14 September 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)

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

  • Hi GAB, welcome to FAC.
  • First up: See WP:INTEXT. All quotes need to be attributed to whoever said them, with a short (sometimes one-word) description of the author (such as "historian") at the first mention of that author. Also, there are too many quotes for FAC; reword at least two-thirds of them. Keep the quotes that are memorable, or the quotes that have some subtle or precise meaning that might be lost in any paraphrase. Also lose the quote marks in almost all cases where you're not actually quoting someone. (For instance, I'd paraphrase "green light" as approval, regardless of whether someone said "green light".) - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice, Dank. I'm in the process of reworking the quotes right now. GABgab 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I know it's annoying, but I'm 99% sure this is a standard request at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
        • No, I understand; in hindsight, I am a bit quote-heavy in my writing, so this is a good time to kick the habit Face-smile.svg GABgab 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
          • @Dank: I have removed a large number of quotes - I'd appreciate any other suggestions you might have to offer. Thanks, GABgab 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
            • That's a lot of work, and looking quickly, you did a spectacular job with it. It should be much easier to get this through FAC now. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time to review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
              • Thank you - I made a trip to the library and looked around on Proquest, and I should be able to add a final batch of books and news reports this weekend. After that, I think I'll be happy with it Face-smile.svg GABgab 20:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  • This appears to be a case of wp:overcite: could the citations be consolidated, or at least put to the end of the sentence?
At about 01:30 EDT (17:30 GMT),[1] two American warships in the Red Sea[2] fired thirteen missiles[3] into Sudan.

References

  1. ^ "U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan". CNN. August 21, 1998. Retrieved 17 August 2016. 
  2. ^ Younge, Gary (August 22, 1998). "We are in a new ball game, says Pentagon". The Guardian. 
  3. ^ Wright 2006, p. 282.
  • The sections are quite long. Has there been any thought given to breaking up some of them into subsections? I.e. the Aftermath section could be subdivided into "Reactions in the West"; "Reactions in the Arab world", etc. Same could be perhaps done to the the factory attack section and some others. I think this would improve readability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'll work on the overcite. I think the aftermath section could be easily broken up by region, and the Al-Shifa section could be split into 2 on the attack and the subsequent controversy. GABgab 01:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've broken up the Al-Shifa section into two separate sections on the attack and the controversy; I've also dealt with the aftermath section, as recommended. GABgab 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the U.S. reaction section could do with some extra meat on its bones; I'll see what I can do to augment that part. GABgab 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stegoceras[edit]

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)

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)

Image review[edit]

Lotta images here; I'll take a look this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here we go:
  • File:Stegoceras.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using a skeleton of the species in the infobox seems fine to me. I remember seeing a discussion there about whether reconstructed skeletons are copyrightable and the conclusion was that it's unlikely an attempted replica of a living being could be considered as "creative" enough to establish copyright protection. It's a Flickr image without EXIF whose license was changed to "all rights reserved" after the upload but that doesn't negate the previous free license. Can't check for Flickrwashing as I can't see other uploads.
You mean the users other uploads? It is from this album by the user:[8] As for using skeletons in the infobox, they are much less speculative than life restorations, so are therefore more reliable/"citable". FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Stegoceras Scale Diagram - Steveoc86.svg: Free image on Commons. Using a size comparison image in the section about the description of the genus seems fine for me, however I wonder how that reconstruction arose. Own work, all other images of the uploader fit the same dinosaur theme, absolutely no reason to doubt anything.
You can see how the image "arose" here:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Stegoceras validum.jpg: Free image on Commons. Wonder where the caption comes from. Using a reconstruction of a species which is discussed as a type species (?) of the genus in the description section seems fine for me. Own work, plausible EXIF for the type of the image. All other images of the uploader fit the same dinosaur theme, absolutely no reason to doubt anything.
You can also see in the discussion above how the caption arose. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Journal.pone.0021422.g001 Stegoceras skulls.png: Free file on Commons. Using a CT image of the skull in the section of the skull seems fine for me. The caption is sourced to the Commons file, yes? Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, and it seems to originate from there. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
All captions are adapted from the original journal captions. The journal licenses are listed on the journal site, and well, in the journal-specific Commons license template. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Stegoceras Hendrickx.jpg: Free file on Commons. A cast of a skull of the type species (?) in the section about the skulls of the genus seems OK. Plausible EXIF that matches other uploads as well as in theme, can't GIS the image though.
  • File:Stegoceras dome.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using an image of the lectotype in the section on the discovery history seems fine for me. Being published in 1907 makes the image PD, not CC-BY, unless the Flickr uploader is the creator of the image/a heir of them, then they can license it as such for those countries where it's not PD.
The Flickr page is just a scan of the old paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:1924 Gilmore Stegoceras.jpg: Free image on Commons. This specimen appears to be directly discussed in the paragraph adjacent to the image. With the information provided, the copyright license seems to be correct - but I can't see the image in the linked page.
There is a link to the file if you search "Stegoceras" on the page. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Stegoceras ossified tendons.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The image is in that section because the interpretation of the ossified tendons are discussed in the adjacent text. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Stegoceras AMNH 5450.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The specimen is discussed in the adjacent text (holotype of the synonym, Ornatotholus). FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It is very loosely relevant there because the text goes into old classification issues, and it is a pretty old image, from the time when classification of the animal was uncertain. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Juvenile Stegoceras.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The image is there because it discusses flat-headed specimen, and the picture shows one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Stegoceras mandible.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using the image of the mandible and teeth in the section on paleoecology seems fine for me. With the information given, the license tag seems correct to me.
  • File:Growth series of Stegoceras validum.png: Free image on Commons. Using a growth series image in the section on ontogeny seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras TMP 84.5.1.png: Free image on Commons. Using subadult and adult images in the section on development seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras and Prenocephale combat orientation.png: Free image on Commons. Using images of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras skull density.png: Free image on Commons. Using CT scans of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras and Cephalophus sections.png: Free image on Commons. Using CT scans of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras skulls.png: Free image on Commons. Using injury images of the skull in the section discussing a possible combat role of the skull seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Dinosaur Provincial Park 01.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using an image of the discovery site in the section on palaeoecology seems pertinent, but I wonder whether it would fit into the discovery history section better. Used elsewhere on the Internet in lower resolution, excluding the Simple Wikipedia. Part of a batch of uploads with different cameras in a geographically circumscribed area. I note that some of other uploads have been marked for deletion in the past.
The section talks about the formation as a whole, and the photo just shows the formation, not the exact spot where the fossils were found. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've copypasted some explanations for mostly identical images. Upon rechecking, I notice that the PLOS template on Commons claims the site uses CC-BY 3.0 but one link is broken and the other one indicate version 4. Otherwise, some images need ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What type of alt text do you need?. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the PLOS One template issues would need to be brought up at the Commons template page[10], it is something that affects all images uploaded from there, not just the ones in this article, so it can only be fixed centrally. Seems a discussion about the issue has already been started:[11] Could you take a look at the alt-text, LittleJerry? I'm a bit burned out by doing other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Didn't check the ALTs, but aside from the PLOS template it seems like everything else is ready to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Seems the template issue needs a wider discussion before it can be dealt with. I'm not sure I can just go in and unilaterally change it, it will affect thousands of Commons files. As for this FAC specifically, it is a free CC-license either way. It is a problem with the specific templates, not with the images here, which would be outside the scope of a FAC, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I've seen people complaining that unclear CC licenses are equivalent to a file being unlicensed. I am fine with punting the template issue to a discussion on Commons, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I have commented on the talk page there with a link back to this FAC. Whatever that template says now, the images themselves are CC by 4, so they are free either way. But yeah, it is not an issue that should just linger on, I'm surprised it hasn't been dealt with already. If nothing happens, I may just go and change it myself, but I'm a bit wary of that. Maybe post about it in a more widely seen section (license village pump or somehting). FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, to prevent this from slipping into oblivion, I'll shamefully ping some of the animal article regulars: Sainsf, Cwmhiraeth, Chiswick Chap, Dunkleosteus77, J Milburn, Jens Lallensack; it doesn't have to be an expert opinion, it is also important to know whether the article is understandable for non-dinosaur people. GA-reviewer IJReid may possibly have something to add as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


I myself do not have anything to add, and if the admins will accept my 2 cents as GA reviewer I support this article being a FA. IJReid discuss 03:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! In addition, I was wondering whether Atsme might be interested as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Will review this afternoon. Atsme📞📧 14:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem I have with this article is that I cannot find anything to criticise ;) An absolutely comprehensive article, and the content is sound throughout. The "History and discovery" section is strictly chronological, which I found interesting. It makes the information flow very clear, but at the same time leads to a separaton of information, so that the reader needs to keep track of everything in order to be able to follow. I really like it this way. Just to nit-pick about something, the sentence "The neural spines of the caudal (tail) vertebrae decreased in height from front to back on the tail.[5]" could be savely removed, as this character is to be expected in most tetrapods. Support, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! As for the neural spine issue, I have two thoughts about this: A; regular readers may not know that this is a common feature, and B; the describers made an effort to specifically mention this feature, so there must be some merit to the info? As for the chronological history section, yeah, there were a few nuts that were hard to crack, for example using the name validus all the way up until the point where it was emended to validum (a reader may think the text uses the old name mistakenly unless they read all the way through). FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I'll remove the neural spine sentence, it was an "extreme" summary of their description that does not really provide any useful information. As for neural spines becoming successively shorter along the tail in all tetrapods, seems there are exceptions?[12] FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Atsme review
Support - This is an excellent article. I hate to nitpick but I want FunkMonk to know that I actually did go over it with a fine tooth comb! Please consider my comments suggestions because it won't change my decision either way. The article is THAT good.
Thanks! Your suggestions are very welcome, English isn't my first language, and the article may be overly technical, so it's nice with any nitpicks... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggested tweak to improve flow in lead paragraph: .....but most have since been moved to other genera or deemed junior synonyms. Today all that remains are S. validum and S. novomexicanum, named in 2011 from fossils found in New Mexico.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Appears serial commas are in use which is ok with me.
Cool, some copy-editors tend to remove it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ...Stegoceras was small to medium-sized - if I may suggest small to medium in size...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm 12 (hypothetical) and have a fascination for dinosaurs - what does UALVP 2 mean? ???
I relegated this info to the history section (specimen UALVP 2 in the University of Alberta Laboratory for Vertebrate Palaeontology), where I found it most appropriate... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • UALVP 2 was found with small, disarticulated bony elements, which were then thought to be gastralia (abdominal ribs), which is not known in other ornithischian dinosaurs (one of the two main groups of dinosaurs). One too many 'whiches'. Suggestion: ... bony elements thought to be gastralia (abdominal ribs) which were not known in other ornithischian dinosaurs (one of the two main groups of dinosaurs).
Reworded it roughly in the way you suggested, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ...whether the holotype specimen represented the distinct species S. novomexicanum, or if it was a juvenile of either S. validum or Sphaerotholus goodwini, or another previously known pachycephalosaur.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • By the 1980s, the affinities of the pachycephalosaurs within Ornithischia was unresolved. Plural? ...the affinities were unresolved.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ...to either ornithopods or to ceratopsians...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In 1986, the American palaeontologist Paul Sereno supported...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wikinlinked dimorphic since it was a minor fix
Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Stegoceras itself is today seen as more primitive or basal than... Try something to the effect of Revised journal entries in 2003 describe Stegoceras as more primitive or basal than...
Made it more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ...pachycephalosaur genera were closer related to "fully" domed taxa... Suggest: were more closely related to...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not entirely known what pachycephalosaurs ate; having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. It is assumed that they lived on a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects and the sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants. Suggestion: It is not entirely known what pachycephalosaurs ate. Their very small, ridged teeth could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. However, it is assumed that their sharp, serrated teeth were ideally suited for a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Atsme📞📧 00:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I will fix these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Dinosaurs are not really my thing!

That's all good, we need to know if "layreaders" will understand the article as well! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest you make the first sentence of the description section a short introduction such as "Stegoceras is a small dinosaur with a long tail that moved about on its two hind legs" or somesuch, so as not to immediately plunge into the detailed description.
Changed a bit, better? Tail length isn't known, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The pelvic girdle was very broad for a bipedal archosaur when seen from above," - I suggest you change this sentence around to "When seen from above, the pelvic girdle ..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The femur (thigh bone) " - Why gloss the femur but not other bones?
Most of the other bones don't have common names! But those that do have common names in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What are "nodes" in this context?
Gave a "common" alternative... FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The teeth in the front of the lower and upper jaws were different from those in the back." - This sentence seems redundant.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lambe was unsure of what kind of dinosaur they belonged to," - this sentence is ungrammatical.
Sorry, I don't get it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"As no similar remains had been found in the area before, Lambe was unsure of what kind of dinosaur they were"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Took it, "they" referred to "remains". FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "the affinities of the pachycephalosaurs within Ornithischia was unresolved." - "were unresolved".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "The supratemporal fenestrae show asymmetry in size, and the closure of the frontoparietal suture is variable." - I was surprised to find this present tense sentence among the past tenses ones.
Changed to past. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "These observations were made while comparing with skull and flank lesions on modern sheep skeletons." - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "that pachycephalosaurs could therefore also have used their domes for both; displaying a weapon and willingness to use it can be enough to settle disputes in some animals." - Ditto.
Not sure I get this one either, any particular part that is unclear, or the whole thing? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it again, it is probably OK, or you could consider splitting it into two sentences. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • An impressive and well-written article.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • By the way, I will be away from tomorrow evening to Thursday, so I hope LittleJerry won't be overwhelmed until then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll do my best. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Now supporting on prose and comprehensiveness. I am satisfied with the changes made and the article seems to cover the subject very fully. It's surprising how much can be deduced from such scanty evidence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Great to have the opinions of a "neontologist"! FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No we haven't yet. LittleJerry (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Just using this version for stability of referencing, you wanna check FN 18 for author formatting and genus italics in title, also some authors have a space between their first two initials of their first names and some don't - just choose one format and go with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and minor comments from Jim
Very comprehensive and meets the FAC criteria. I may have missed links or glosses for the rare or technical rugose, parietosquamosal and holotype, please check Jimfbleak (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I linked holotype. The others have no articles (one just a disambiguation page). LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, and nice to see you back! I moved the link for holotype up to first occurrence. I think I forgot it because lectotype was already linked... FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 29 September 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)

Support 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)
        • You may well be right, the overlapping chains of command that Hitler (and Himmler) implemented certainly had that effect in a lot of places, notably in German-occupied Serbia, but I haven't been able to locate anything that says this of Berger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 1 September 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.

Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article - having high quality articles on Nazi functionaries is an important element of building our coverage of Nazi Germany. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. A pretty nasty lot, but I agree, we need to improve our coverage of them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Assayer[edit]

I am not sure, if a featured article of the English wikipedia has to be based on the relevant Non-English literature as well. Nonetheless, since the subject is German history, I will name a few studies. While there is no book-length biography of Berger, a couple of articles have been published in German by:

  • Alfred Hoffmann: Der "maßlose Drang, eine Rolle zu spielen": Gottlob Berger. In: Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer, ed. by Wolfgang Proske, Vol. 1, Reutlingen 2010, pp. 21-51.
  • Gerhard Rempl: Gottlob Berger. "Ein Schwabengeneral der Tat". In: Die SS. ed. by Ronald Smelser & Enrico Syring, Paderborn 2000. pp. 45-59.
  • Joachim Scholtyseck: Der „Schwabenherzog“. Gotthold Berger, SS-Obergruppenführer. In: Die Führer der Provinz. NS-Biographien aus Baden und Württemberg, ed. by Michael Kißener & Joachim Scholtyseck, Konstanz 1997, pp. 77-110.
  • Gerhard Rempel: Gottlob Berger and Waffen-SS Recruitment: 1933-1945. In: Militärgesch. Mitteilungen 27, (1980), pp. 107-122.

The article is largely based on books by Adrian Weale and George Stein, respectively. While Weale's book is apparently a synthesis of various studies studies published in English and suffers from the author's apparent inability to read German (review by Richard J. Evans), Stein's study was originally published in 1966 (1984 reprinted in pbk). It is by now considered to be outdated. Publications by Rupert Butler, Chris Bishop, Chris McNab, Jonathan Trigg are not high-quality. Kübler is national-socialist in outlook.

The standard work on the Waffen-SS is still Bernd Wegner's study of 1980, 9th ed. 2010, published in English as "The Waffen SS" in 1990. In recent years the interest in the Waffen-SS has reinvigorated. A representative collection of essays is Die Waffen-SS. Neue Forschungen. ed. by Jan Erik Schulte, Peter Lieb, Bernd Wegner, Schöningh, Paderborn 2014. Many of the contributing authors have also published monographic studies (mainly revised PhD. theses). On the recruitment process, see in particular René Rohrkamp, »Weltanschaulich gefestigte Kämpfer«: Die Soldaten der Waffen-SS 1933-1945. Paderborn 2010.

On the whole the article seems a little unbalanced. There is much information about the organization of the different units, but it is not always clear what Berger has to do with this. For example, the paragraph about the Baltic divisions doesn't even mention Berger or his and Himmler's promises of autonomy to Latvians and Estonians. His role in crushing the Slovakian uprising is passed over rather quickly. Neither do we learn much about Berger's ideology. As early as 1938 Himmler had proclaimed that he intended to recruit "non-German Germanics" for the SS, and in 1940 Berger dreamt to win over millions of men with German ancestry in the Americas and Australia at some point. Moreover, Berger reasoned that by transforming the SS into a full-scale army it could be established as a real alternative to the Wehrmacht. On this see Bernd Wegner: Auf dem Weg zur pangermanischen Armee. Dokumente zur Entstehungsgeschichte des III. ("germanischen") SS-Panzerkorps In: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 28 (1980): pp. 101–136. More material on the soldierly role models of the SS can be found in Knut Stang: Ritter, Landsknecht, Legionär: Militärmythische Leitbilder in der Ideologie der SS. Frankfurt 2009; Berger's and Himmler's ideas of the Islam have found some attention in recent years, for example by David Motadel: Islam and Nazi Germany's War. Cambridge, MA, 2014. --Assayer (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm also not sure of the requirement for non-English sources on en WP, although there is no doubt that biographical articles on non-English-speaking people have made it to Featured status without a significant weight of foreign sources. I will see if I can get access to Wegner, thanks for that advice and the pointers to other sources. I would ask that you provide some evidence that Stein is outdated, particularly given that you have listed a 35-year-old book as being the standard work on the subject. For example, in my main area of specialisation, books from the 1960s and 70s remain standard texts on aspects of interwar and WWII Yugoslavia. Same goes for the reliability of the other sources. A negative review in an academic journal would be the sort of evidence I'd be looking for. Having said that, this isn't a dissertation, it is WP, so the issue is meeting the reliability requirements unless you consider an extraordinary claim has been made somewhere. Berger was the head of recruiting, not the organiser of the new divisions, so the history of the changes in recruitment is germane to his biography. Finally, thanks for the mention of the Slovakian uprising, I will take another look at that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The main issue with Stein's work is, that it reproduces the image of the Waffen-SS as an military "elite". Sönke Neitzel characterizes this (with reference to Stein and Höhne) as a myth which originated with the Nazi propaganda during the war. ("Des Forschens noch wert? Anmerkungen zur Operationsgeschichte der Waffen-SS," In: MGZS 61 (2002), p. 406, 415) According to Jens Westemeier recent research has shown that Stein's overall judgement, namely that the significance of the Waffen-SS is to be found "in its part in the great battles for the defense of Hitler's Europe", is grossly misleading. (Himmlers Krieger, 2014, p. 13.) Thomas Casagrande criticizes that Stein takes judgements by Eicke and other commanders about the military worth of the "Volksdeutschen" at face value. (Die volksdeutsche SS-Division "Prinz Eugen", 2003, pp. 305-6.) Wegner provided a social history of the Waffen-SS and in that respect his work is still unsurpassed. Later editions have been revised and improved. Considering that it is available in English I am surprised that it is not being used more often in the English Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that is a fair analysis of Stein, despite the title of his book. He outlines what was essentially a two-tier system, the second of which he describes as far from "elite". He's also far from the only writer that identifies what was effectively a two or multi-tier arrangement within the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS. He observes that what made the first tier "elite" was largely about the size and equipment of those formations, not necessarily the personnel or even training, although indoctrination obviously played a part. Other authors have observed better relationships between officers, NCOs and men in Waffen-SS formations when compared to comparable Army formations, for example. Comparable Army formations would also fit the "elite" description, largely for similar reasons. I have found that Wegner is held by my state library, so I will go and have a look and see what he says about Berger and his recruiting activities. In response to your comment I have added more about the Slovak uprising and some additional material about Berger from Kroener et al in various places. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 29 September 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.[13]. - 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)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A tangential point (frankly the note in question feels rather off-topic), but the note distinguishing Cootes Drive from the QEW could be worded better: Cootes Drive connects Dundas with Hamilton which were separate cities at the time, so the inner-city/inter-city distinction rings hollow. Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid[edit]

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert ) and Boghog (talk) 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, provided that it is listed in the NLM Catalog. 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 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.
  • 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]

  • OpposeWeak 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 - http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB00754#taxonomy - 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)

@Nergaal: Is there something that you still want me to add or have you just been busy IRL? Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Can the pic in biosynthesis be changed to also show the chemical formulas? The lead could have less refs IMO. Also, the lead says it is good for muscle grwth, but perhaps mention what biocycle is it supplicating. The history section needs to be merged or expanded. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. I could use {{AI4}} to annotate the chemical formulas as wikitext onto the image, but there isn't much room to add text for some of the compounds on the right side of the image; I'd have to expand the width of the image to add formulas to those since the only place to add an annotation to MC-CoA is on the right side. That said, the CoA compounds have pretty long chemical formulas due to the coenzyme A group (e.g., MC-CoA is C26H42N7O17P3S) – are you sure you want me to add that?
  2. Would you prefer that the lead refs be grouped at the end of the paragraph? I ended up doing this in amphetamine's lead and wouldn't mind doing it again here.
    • This page revision - Special:permalink/737260423 - is an example of how it would look in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. I didn't change the 1st lead paragraph simply for the sake of comparison. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. I've added a summary statement from the body about the mechanism of effects/pharmacodynamics to the lead in the 1st paragraph: "HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis and inhibiting muscle protein breakdown through various mechanisms, including activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles."
  4. I've removed the history section pending expansion. The content was previously only covered in the lead; Axl mentioned that it wasn't covered in the body in his section below, so I created the history section in response. I suppose this will have to be 1 of those instances where a lead statement isn't covered in the body for technical reasons unless I can find more information relevant to the historical aspects of HMB. IIRC Jytdog linked a ref below that might contain useful information about HMB-related history, but I need to read through it to be sure. Seppi333 (Insert ) 15:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: I found some relevant historical HMB-containing commercial product information in the Iowa State University FY2011 proposal that Jytdog linked to below. The relevant excerpt is located at Talk:Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid#FAC-related_references in the green quote box. If I cover this in the history section, it should end up being a 3–4 sentence paragraph - would that be sufficient for an expansion? Ideally, I'd like to mention something about who actually discovered the chemical originally in that section, but unfortunately I haven't read anything about that to date. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I expanded the history section into a 5 sentence paragraph today – Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#History. If there's any issues with the current section, let me know. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: I need your input on #1 and #2 above before proceeding on those; I believe I've addressed the other two issues on its mechanism (#3) and expanding the history section (#4) as described above. Please let me know if you'd like me to make any other changes. Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Sorry to annoy you with a ping again, but I still need your input on the first two points above when you get a chance. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I came to take a quick look and found a bunch of problems. It is obvious no chemist has taken a stab at this article. You really need somebody with some chemical background. The melting point cannot possibly be at -30 °C, and the ref used is useless. A substance does not have a pH but a pKa. I am sure something about its lactone can be said or about some exotic synthetic ways. Anything chemistry related really. 21:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nergaal: you're probably right about needing a chemist to review this; chemistry is literally the only subject area in pharmacology-related articles in which I don't have an adequate background knowledge. As for the MP/BP, I sought feedback from WP:WikiProject Chemicals at WT:CHEM#MP/BP of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid to determine what MP and BP to use. I'll request a review of this article in this FAC nomination at WT:CHEM in an attempt to address your concerns; however, I'd strongly suggest mentioning and clarifying your objection about the MP in that discussion (WT:CHEM#MP/BP of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid) in order to address the issue. Edit: just to clarify, the article and cited source indicate that the experimental least upper bound for the MP is −32 °C (i.e., it doesn't melt at that temperature), they don't say that the MP is −32 °C. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • As for the laboratory/industrial synthesis of HMB, @Boghog: can you comment on this? Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: could you comment on the first 2 issues from above about the image annotations and lead citations? I still need your feedback on those. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much every compound has a mp. I think SciFinder sometimes lists a bunch of these numbers. Or go to Aldrich.com and put the CAS number and open the SDS document. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I seem to need an account to use SciFinder; I'll ask at WP:RX and WT:CHEM sometime later tonight (I need to log off WP for now) to see if someone else can access the database entry for me. As for the Sigma Aldrich website, they list "−80 °C(lit.)" as the MP. Do you believe that this is a very reliable source for this data? As I mentioned in the WT:CHEM thread that I linked, I've found at least 3 different MPs listed for this compound in different databases, so ideally I'd like to cite a secondary source that cites primary literature. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I do not have access to SciFinder either. HMB is a liquid at room temperature and therefore by definition, it must have a melting point below room temperature and I don't think one can dismiss that the melting point could be as low as -30 °C or even lower (compare with propionic acid whose melting point is -21 °C). I do agree that we need a better source.
  • Concerning HMB acid dissociation constant, the supplied source stated that the pH of HMB was less than three is clearly in error. First of all, the acidity constant should be abbreviated as pKa, not pH. Also the pKa of aliphatic carboxylic acids is normally in the range of 4-5 (e.g., acetic acid – 4.76). I have not been able to find an experimental value, however the ChemAxon calculated value is 4.55 which is much more reasonable. I have modified the text accordingly.
  • The lactone of of HMB, 4,4-dimethyloxetan-2-one (CAS # 1823-52-5), is known, but it does not appear to be particularly notable and hence I question its relevance to this article. Boghog (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In re-reading the Coffman et al., JACS, 1958 citation, I now notice that this source does provide pKa values (4.42±0.02), melting point (glass at –80°C. apparently it does't crystallize), and an alternative synthesis (carboxylation of t-butanol by treatment with carbon monoxide and Fenton's reagent). I will add this. Boghog (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: Thank you for your comments that prompted me to take a second look at the chemistry section. I think I have now addressed your concerns regarding the melting point and pKa. In addition, I have added more detail about the synthesis from diacetone as well as an alternative synthesis from t-butanol. In my opinion, the synthesis section should be restricted to economically viable reactions that can be used industrially and exclude exotic synthetic routes whose notability is questionable. The originally published syntheses are simple, high yield, and cheap. Hence there has been little need for improved syntheses and as a consequence, there is not an extensive literature describing the preparation of HMB to draw on. Boghog (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: When you get a chance, can you follow-up on Boghog's reply/changes to the article and/or provide further feedback on what content to add/fix in the article? I'm not really sure what you'd like me to do at this point. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333: I have access to SciFinder if you still need information from it. Sizeofint (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sizeofint and Boghog: That would help a lot. Boghog has expressed a willingness to work on the chemistry-related content in the article (see User_talk:Boghog#trimethylamine monooxygenase and FMO3), so it would be best to correspond with him to determine what he needs. I'm not familiar with SciFinder at all. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Sizeofint: I am trying to expand the chemistry section, but do not have access to SciFinder to find appropriate sources. I have tried searching Google Scholar, PubChem, and other free search engines and have not found much beyond the Coffman et al., JACS, 1958 citation. I just need a list of citations that describe the preparation or properties of HMB (CAS # 625-08-1) and I can take it from there. I suspect the list of citations will not be very long, but I could be wrong. Also the lactone (4,4-dimethyloxetan-2-one (CAS # 1823-52-5), PMID 11841278) was mentioned above. If there are any sources that describe the conversion of HMB into its lactone or vice versa, that would also be very useful. Boghog (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
With thanks to Sizeofint for supplying database searches, I have expanded the synthesis section. There are several more syntheses that could be added, but most of these are obscure reactions or reactions where HMB is a side product. Hence I question the notability of these. Also there were some early syntheses reported (and associated physical data of the synthesized HMB) based on an aldol condensation without dehydration between acetone and ethyl acetate. However I think this would be highly unlikely since the dehydration is the driving force for the reaction. As far as physical data, there is not much more that could (or should) be added. By far, the most notable aspect of HMB is that is a naturally produced metabolite and a food additive . Much less has been published about its chemistry. Hence per WP:DUE, it is appropriate that the chemistry section of this article is significantly shorter than some of the other sections. Boghog (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Boghog has been co-opted as a nominator to help address issues with the chemistry section. He has expanded the section since you last commented, so could you take a look and follow up with him? I'd appreciate it. Edit: FWIW, "Chemistry" is now the 2nd longest section in this article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:57, 26 September 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)

I apologize for not getting back to this. I never managed to finish reading the article. I'm satisfied with the issues discussed in this section, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Zefr[edit]

Oppose: --Zefr (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed pending an actionable response from Zefr -- Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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 [14](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)

My bad for not getting around to this yet; I'll have it uploaded by saturday at the latest. Seppi333 (Insert ) 21:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sizeofint: I've uploaded an image and placed it halfway into the beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Enhancing performance section so that it spans the part of the "Available forms" section, hopefully without breaking the page-spanning line under the "Side effects" heading (like the one above here) on most browsers. Does the image and its placement look ok to you? Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Looks great! Sizeofint (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by John[edit]

Just a beginning here. I have skim-read the article and the previous comments. I understand that a couple of reviewers have had qualms about over-quoting and NPOV. Have these concerns been addressed at all? I will be reading the article and the review more closely now. As I work through I will make a light copyedit with the reviews already made in mind. I will also make comments, recommendations and ask questions here. Does that sound ok? --John (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good.
W.r.t. NPOV: Only Zefr has claimed that there's an NPOV issue in the article, but he won't point me to a source that supports his claim about there being some form of contradictory research that isn't mentioned in the article. I'm not really sure how to address his objections given the circumstances; he's being so vague that my only possible option is to delete large swaths of article text, which I won't do without a consensus among several editors.
W.r.t. the quotes: Doc James mentioned his concern about potential copyright problems associated with the lengthy quotes in the article. He asked Moonriddengirl to comment and she mentioned that there's a number of factors that determine whether text quotations are fair use or not. Neither of them have asked me to remove the quotes as of yet; however, as I mentioned in that section, I'm perfectly willing to prune the quotes down or even remove/censor them entirely if they or others genuinely believe that the quotations present a problem. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will keep those comments in mind as I now begin to read the article properly. --John (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

  • Medical reviews of randomized controlled trials indicate that there are no issues with safety from long-term use as a dietary supplement in adults.[2][10][15] Is this NPOV?
    • The relevant text in the citations that support that statement are currently quoted in the each reference which supports it. The statement is a summary of the text in the body, where "long-term use" is used in place of the phrase "chronic use" from 1 of the references. In clinical trials, it has been used daily for up to a year w/o any reported adverse effects. To my knowledge, there have been no adverse effects reported from the daily use of the compound at any dose in any clinical trials in humans. This is why there's no "Overdose" section in the article. In any event, it's probably best to have someone else from WP:MED who has read the article to comment about its neutrality. @Jytdog, M. A. Bruhn, and Doc James: do the three of you think that the summary of the safety profile in the lead and the section on adverse effects are neutrally worded and accurately reflect the cited reviews? Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is NPOV. I've looked through those sources and over a dozen others; HMB appears to be remarkably safe for chronic usage by adults. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I would suggest adding an "as of" date to the beginning of the statement, and maybe replace "indicate that there are" with "have found" . That is a pretty good catch, actually. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
      I've edited the statement accordingly. [15] Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I would suggest against this. It is definitely more technically true, but it is over-qualified to the point of violating NPOV by under-representing its safety. It has been really well studied. Look at these statements from reviews: "The safety profile of HMB is unequivocal", "Chronic consumption of HMB is safe in both young and old populations", "Further, chronic consumption of HMB appears safe ... No serious adverse effects from HMB consumption have been reported". You can't really "prove" safety, but the extensive trials on it which haven't turned up a single report of serious harm, and only an occasional whiff of irreproducible, very mild adverse effects, at least "indicate" that there are no issues with safety. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • while i hear that, a) none of the trials were very big and b) even with things that were tested in thousands of people, sometimes things only emerge when something has been in millions of people (vioxx, avandia, etc). The statement in the reference... "chronic consumption of HMB appears safe ... No serious adverse effects from HMB consumption have been reported" is wise and good. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
          After looking at the statement again, I think using an "As of" is somewhat problematic here since it's unusual to date statements about side effects (e.g., "As of June 2014, the known side effects of XYZ are..." or "As of December 2015, the side effects of ABC that have been found in clinical trials are...") in drug articles. I don't think there's anything wrong with the "have found" wording, but I'm going to cut the "As of" template because it doesn't seem to set a good precedent for writing about side effects in other WP:PHARM articles. The publication date of the most recently published reference which cites that sentence is what I used to date the statement, so I don't think there's really any loss of information by removing it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic
  • @Jytdog: HMB has been in millions of people, it's been a common supplement for decades. The article doesn't indicate this though, I agree with the discussion down below about adding a brief history section. Also you have to consider that the safety of supplements are judged with very different standards as those used for pharmaceuticals, they're just usually (of course there are plenty of exceptions) much less biologically active. The statement by those authors is fine, but we need our own wording. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Your claim that it is has been in millions of people is without a source so means nothing (other than raising concerns for me about how you work here in Wikipedia). With regard to your argument about dietary supplements: a) It is marketed as a medical food and a dietary supplement. b) A statement of whether something is safe or not, is a statement of whether something is safe or not. Be it flying or a drug or acupuncture. c) A lot of dietary supplements have potent activity eg St Johns Wort; HMB does apparently as well. But in any case there is nothing to your argument either.Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
      • What a petty cheap shot. It's been a popular supplement since the 90s, that should be enough to realize that millions have taken it over the years. Why should I look up a source estimating the number of people worldwide who have taken it, you probably can't find that on any supplement except a few like multivitamins. A) What's your point? Replace "supplements" with "medical food" and my statement is still completely correct, medical foods require no clinical trials, no proof of safety, their ingredients have to be GRAS like any other food, B) How we determine if flying is safe is very different from how we determine if a drug is safe. We don't use large RCTs to determine safety in flying just like how we don't use them in supplements either, C) "of course there are plenty of exceptions", and relative to performance-enhancing drugs HMB is not nearly as potent. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • You may be right about the "millions" but none of us here have any source to back that up, and I have little patience for people who make shit up and none for people who stick to their guns when called on it. I have no more to say here. Seppi you have my feedback on the safety language. Good luck as the FAR unfolds! Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Before I ever posted that I looked at: stats concerning supplement use in general, sales figures of body building supplements and a $50-60 million dollar number for sales of HMB in the US in 1998, a 2006 study by the NCAA looking at % of college athletes using HMB (and I looked at number of NCAA athletes in 2006), various literature sources giving subjective descriptions of HMB as popular supplement at various times, various articles describing prevalence of HMB usage in various specific sports disciplines (primarily bodybuilding), tried to gauge what percentage of HMB products are just pure HMB or a combination of HMB with other things, I did various back-on-the-envelope calculations from a variety of angle to try and justify a "millions" order of magnitude, and much, much more. I did all of this to counter your stupid, lazy assumption that HMB hadn't been taken by millions. Why do you think it took me an hour and 37 minutes to respond to you? I was certainly not going to write up all of my thoughts and link all of my sources just so I could be condescendingly dismissed by someone who has done zero research on HMB and who has no expertise yet think their opinions are superior to the relevant literature. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
          • You still have no source for the number (by "source" I mean anything useful in a WP discussion). Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
            • I didn't write all of the above to try and support there being millions of people who have taken it (this you can convince yourself of if you want to), I wrote that to counter you stating that I "make shit up". The only thing I've made up was this statement "Why should I look up a source estimating the number of people worldwide who have taken it, you probably can't find that on any supplement except a few like multivitamins", which is really code for "I don't want to admit to how much time I spent looking for a source to support an obvious and uncontroversial claim, and also there is a ton of research about multivitamin usage prevalence." I brought up the fact that it has been used by millions, not to "win" some sort of "WP discussion", but because I perceived that you had no idea this was an extremely common supplement, and I wanted to indirectly confront this perception without calling you out on it and embarrassing you. I intentionally stated "The article doesn't indicate this though, I agree with the discussion down below about adding a brief history section" to try and excuse any ignorance about this supplement's prevalence. All I've gotten though is shit from you in return. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
                • There is no point continuing this, which distracts from Seppi's effort to get this article to FA. You had no source for the "millions" of people having took this, and you still don't have one. This is doing nothing to improve the article. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Since" and "while" make these sentences slightly ambiguous. Is it possible to reword?
    • Sure, I don't see why not. If you have a particular way of rephrasing it in mind, feel free to change it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • HMB is sold in the United States and internationally ... You mean it is sold all around the world? This looks very insular to the majority of readers, who are not Americans. Just say it is sold all around the world, if that is an important point for the lead. I am not sure that it is.
  • the conjugate base, calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate (HMB-Ca) Why the italics?
    • The clause "a monohydrated calcium salt of the conjugate base" which immediately precedes "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" is referring to/talking about that particular compound/phrase, so I figured MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies here. I did something similar in the lead of amphetamine when talking about what that word "amphetamine" properly refers to. If you think it shouldn't be italicized, I don't mind removing the italics. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • both in and outside of competition I prefer to avoid "outside of"; do we need to say this at all?
    • WADA/NCAA both make a distinction between the use of certain ergogenic substances during competition vs at any time. E.g., the WADA banned substances list has 3 tabs on the left side that link to pages on substances which are banned in specific sports, at all times, and during competition. However, it probably isn't necessary to specify that. To address this and the following bullet point simultaneously, I combined both sentences into the following statement: "As of 2015, HMB has not been banned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), or any other athletic organization in the United States or internationally." I don't think it's really necessary to mention the lack of testing for it since that's sort of implied. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing is a problem. The source has "The drug is not tested for nor banned by any sporting organization" and the article says "As of 2015, HMB was not tested for or banned by any athletic organization in the United States or internationally". There's that awful clunky phrase again, but the paraphrase is a more pressing concern.
    • My bad on the paraphrasing. I should have caught that. I've attempted to address the phrasing and close paraphrasing issues with the revision that I've described in the above bullet. Let me know if the wording is ok. Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Especially as I was looking at NPOV, I see potential to rewrite this into something a little less pro-HMB. I will have more comments later but if this is a fair sample of the whole article I could not support it at present. --John (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the goal here should be to ensure that the existing article text is an accurate restatement of what is asserted about it in current medical reviews. If a sentence in the article includes a medical claim which is too strong relative to what is asserted in existing literature, then the statement obviously should be revised per WP:V. If an assertion which is contradictory to what is stated in the article and the cited literature exists in other current medical literature, then it should also be covered/cited in the article per WP:DUE/WP:NPOV. However, I don't think the current wording about HMB's clinical efficacy or safety is overstated since I worked with Jytdog (see his review above) and M. A. Bruhn (see the "Comments about safety" section on the HMB talk page) to ensure that the evidence which supports the statements of efficacy and safety in the "Uses" and "Side effects" sections is clearly and accurately described in the text. To my knowledge, there are no current medical reviews which make assertions that contradict any statements in the article.
Anyway, I figured the existing article text would need a little work before satisfying 1a. Your prior experience in this area is why I asked you specifically for help. Face-tongue.svg Seppi333 (Insert ) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
User:John I completely hear you on the NPOV thing. Seppi is correct that this flows directly from the sources, which are pretty darn unimpeachable with regard to their type per MEDRS, and per MEDASSESS we cannot go second guessing what they say. I am dismayed by what they say - in my view they are way too definite and rosy based on the data they use - but that is my problem, not Wikipedia's. :) And I have not seen any reviews that bring a different perspective. Seppi reflected the sources accurately. So these statements are OK per NPOV in my view. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
You two are both looking at this article as if it is a pharmaceutical, it's not. Why are dietary supplements considered safe until proven harmful under US law whereas pharmaceuticals are considered harmful until proven safe? If you can't answer that question then you shouldn't be presuming to know better than the literature written by those that have actual expertise in the area. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The answer to why they are treated differently is politics. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. And pharmaceuticals are not "considered harmful until proven safe" but that is offtopic. In any case please discuss content and sourcing and stop talking about other editors per se. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Supplements need to be proven harmful to be taken off the market, drugs have to be proven safe to put on the market, that is what I was trying to say. If you want to dismiss this as entirely due to politics then go ahead, you can think whatever you like. As for your last comment, why don't you reflect on that yourself. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

General point I am going to hold off on a more detailed review until the concerns about NPOV are properly addressed. Here is what I mean, with my FAR hat on. Whether we consider this substance as a pharmaceutical, a dietary supplement or a food, an article which is universally positive looks like it breaches NPOV. A quick Google search readily yields results like these:

1: Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2001 Sep;11: Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation does not affect changes in strength or body composition during resistance training in trained men. 2: J Strength Cond Res. 2009 May;23(3):827-35. Effects of nine weeks of beta-hydroxy-beta- methylbutyrate supplementation on strength and body composition in resistance trained men. 3: J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Feb;24(2): Exercise-induced muscle damage is not attenuated by beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate and alpha-ketoisocaproic acid supplementation. I lack the expertise and time to trawl properly through the sources to evaluate these sources or to find more, but I think a general reader may be perplexed not to see these more nuanced critiques represented in our article. If, on the other hand, these are outdated or misguided claims which have been debunked, it would be interesting to present the claims and the counter-claims. --John (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@John: I'm not sure that those sources even satisfy WP:RS, much much less WP:MEDRS. If you can find a MEDRS-quality source that contains "counterclaims" like the ones you've linked, I'd be happy to add them. Unfortunately, per MEDRS, I can't add anything that doesn't meet that guideline when adding and sourcing a medical claim. I don't think I'll be able to do anything to act on your objection about an alleged NPOV issue because I know of no medical sources that make the same assertions as these websites. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) User:John - NPOV = accurately reflecting what reliable sources say. For content about health, WP:MEDRS defines reliable sources, and not one of the sources you cite above are OK per MEDRS. I As I noted above, here, I too was unhappy with how positive recent reviews are, and I actually raised that at WT:MED for discussion, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_80#Question_about_a_journal. And please take the time to read that. Please do not criticize the NPOV aspect of this article based on sources that are not reliable. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Those responses can cover this subject to the degree that it is considered as a medical food. Are there any sources that speak to perceptions of its efficacy as a bodybuilding supplement? As this is not a health concern but a more general human one, I am not sure that MEDRS needs to apply. --John (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting; we don't usually have any kind of content about "popular perceptions" about any health intervention. We apply MEDRS to content about health with regard to dietary supplements etc all the time. And to bodybuilding too. That is definitely health content. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You're the experts, but if the International Journal of Sports Medicine is not considered a reliable source, there are an awful lot of other articles here that need adjusted. --John (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's an interesting and I think MEDRS-compliant source which seems to present a fair summary of the various studies. There seem to be conflicting results. The article should probably reflect that. --John (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
John for pete's sake. Here is what you wrote: Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. The link there is to a blog. That blog is not a reliable source. That blog posting is about this paper published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. That paper is a PRIMARY source (see MEDRS definitions) We don't use primary sources for content about health, we use literature reviews or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. In the post just above, you link to PMC2245953 which = PMID 18173841. This is indeed a review, but one from 2008 - eight years old. Again per MEDRS (specifically WP:MEDDATE) we use the most recent reviews that are published, generally not more than five years old for actively-researched topics, and this is indeed actively researched. As I said above, NPOV is based on reliable sources, and MEDRS defines reliable sources. Please base your comments on WP's policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there are currently only 2 MEDRS-quality reviews which focus entirely upon the effects of HMB in athletes - PMID 25663250 and PMID 23374455 - and one which should be published within the next couple of months: [16]. I've already used these 2 reviews to source content in the article and I'm actively monitoring pubmed for when the 3rd one is published. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@John: Are we okay on the POV issue or do you still have concerns?
If there's an issue with the current summary sentence in the "Enhancing performance" section due to its lack of specificity, I'm okay with writing another sentence or two following the summary sentence in that paragraph to specifically address why there are positive and negative findings[note 1] per the 2 reviews that focus on this topic - primarily this International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) review which is a comprehensive review of all HMB studies in athletes as of February 2013,[note 2] but also this review (most of this is attributed to statistical design issues in certain studies) - and which subpopulations appear to benefit more from HMB (IIRC, untrained individuals "appear" to obtain more of a benefit, but I didn't think this was particularly notable because I wasn't aware of a study which compared groups composed of HMB-treated untrained individuals, HMB-treated trained individuals, placebo-treated untrained, and placebo-treated trained individuals; this study design would allow for a statistician to determine if there's a statistically significant difference between the average lean mass gains in the untrained vs trained HMB-treated groups).
If the issue is with something which isn't covered in one of the currently cited reviews, I'll probably need your help with finding a source that makes a statement supporting your POV.

So, in a nutshell, if you still think that there's still a problem, just let me know exactly what the issue is and I'll do my best to address it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@John: I just want to be perfectly clear about what positive clinical findings from supplemental HMB that I've chosen to cover in the article: I did not cover recent positive findings involving HMB that were covered in MEDRS-quality reviews that either have not been replicated or been supported by research on a sample which is (IMO) sufficiently large even if that finding has been replicated in 1 or more clinical trials. Some examples of positive (i.e., statistically significant) findings that I chose not to mention in the article, despite being covered in one or more MEDRS-quality reviews of placebo-controlled clinical trials with HMB on humans, include:
As mentioned above, all five of these positive findings are cited by at least 1 MEDRS-quality review (e.g., the review to which the statements are hyperlinked) and the latter 2 findings (i.e., improved aerobic performance and power output) are supported by multiple primary studies, so I COULD add all 5 of these findings to the article. However, I CHOSE NOT TO because I personally don't feel that the evidence base is strong enough to merit inclusion in the article. You need to realize that I am actually erring on the opposite side of NPOV that you think I am: I'm not covering all of the positive findings that are supported by the cited literature.[note 3]
Lastly, one review published in July 2014 cited 2 other reviews (neither of which was the comprehensive ISSN review) to make the assertion that more than 20 primary publications showed positive results on body composition and muscle function/strength.[1] As of today, about 50 pubmed-indexed clinical trials with HMB in humans have been published (this assertion is verifiable in this link), however only a fraction of those specifically examined the effect of daily HMB use on lean body mass and muscle strength/function in athletes. E.g., some of those 50 studies only examined unrelated outcomes, like the effects of long-term HMB supplementation on cardiovascular system and endothelial function in older adults, the immediate cellular effects of HMB in the skeletal muscle tissue of living humans, the effects on aerobic performance, post-discharge mortality in trauma ICU patients, etc.. Hopefully what I've mentioned here and the medical reviews that I've cited/linked will give you an idea of the current state of evidence supporting the assertions in the "Medical" and "Enhancing performance" sections in the article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Seppi333 for the considered response. It isn't so much that I have a POV that I want to see represented, it is more that my knowledge and experience make me suspicious of products that virtually claim to be elixirs, with perfect efficacy and no side effects, as I know and you know that in the medium to long term there is no such thing. In addition to the qualms I feel about the very positive gloss that is being given to this product in Wikipedia's voice (remember we had a similar conversation with regard to Adderall at the amphetamine FAR which we resolved amicably?), I have the additional sense of potential charlatanism and snake-oil salesmen at work, given my suspicion of bodybuilding supplements and the accusations of conflict of interest in some of the positive studies. I am not advocating for a particular POV here, but for NPOV which is policy. I would suggest, again, that a more sober wording of some of the article may answer this point. Let's pretend it is a car, or a movie. We report the rave reviews, the stars at the premiere, the awards it won, but we also report the complaints that it was over-rated. Obviously we have to go with the sources, and I hear what you say about MEDRS; this sourcing works for claims about its safety for sure, inasmuch as the subject of this article is a medicine or medical food. But I don't see anything wrong in covering it as a commercial product as well; it's possible that the majority of people reading this article will be interested in finding out about it for this reason, and if there are adverse consumer experiences out there, people reporting it didn't particularly work for them, we might profitably consider adding them to the article if they are well-sourced. Honestly, the article will read better with a more balanced approach. Incidentally, both of you, there are no strong feelings about this on my side, I am just doing my best to help you to review this article as requested, and Jytdog I am doing my best to "base [my] comments on WP's policies and guidelines." as I understand them. The relevant one here is WP:NPOV which reads in part Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I'll have more to say later, and some specific recommendations. I am working at quite a slow pace as I have a lot of other things going on but rest assured I will not forget the work we are doing here. --John (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple of weeks have now passed and I should have a bit more time to put into this. If nobody objects I will have a hack at the prose; I'll do some specific recommendations. Before I do that I will read the article in detail again, to take account of the changes, which I see as a modest improvement. The pH looked awfully low, and I am glad that was picked up! --John (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks John - I appreciate your willingness to take on a review of the prose. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@John: Since Boghog has been co-opted as a nominator to work on the chemistry content in the article to address Nergaal's concerns, I should be able to devote the majority of my time to addressing any concerns that you and Axl have about the wording and illustrations in the article. There should only be about two weeks remaining before this nomination is either archived or promoted though, so do you think you'd be able to read through the article and provide a list of issues for me to work on before then? I should be able to promptly address any concerns involving how the prose is written; finding appropriate sources for new article content or revising any of the diagrams might take me a bit longer, but I should be able to make any of those changes within a day or two provided that the an objection involving either of those is sufficiently specific.
FWIW, I didn't say this before, but I'm completely okay with revising any of the statements in the article to address potential NPOV concerns provided that the revised statement still satisfies WP:V. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I haven't forgotten about this. I will get to this in the next day or two, I promise. --John (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Rahman A, Wilund K, Fitschen PJ, Jeejeebhoy K, Agarwala R, Drover JW, Mourtzakis M (July 2014). "Elderly persons with ICU-acquired weakness: the potential role for β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation?". JPEN J. Parenter. Enteral Nutr. 38 (5): 567–575. doi:10.1177/0148607113502545. PMID 24072740. More than 20 publications in humans have demonstrated benefit with HMB supplementation associated with increased lean body mass without fat gain, improved markers of muscle strength, and decreased onset of muscle soreness with training and reduced markers of muscle damage.5,29 
Notes
  1. ^ By "positive and negative findings", I mean "statistically significant and statistically insignificant effects", not good/healthy and bad/unhealthy effects.
  2. ^ Of all the medical reviews that I've linked to today, this review is the only one that focuses exclusively on the effects of supplemental HMB in athletes.
  3. ^ These findings ARE WP:DUE due to their coverage in a MEDRS-quality source and normally findings like this are covered in pharmacology articles. However, as I've already stated here and alluded to in Jytdog's section, I'm choosing not to cover these findings simply because I believe that the findings should be verified in a second study or validated in a larger sample - and ideally have an established biomolecular/pharmacodynamic basis for the effect - before being covered in a section on a substance's clinical effects in healthy individuals.

    This is exactly the same approach that I used when writing about the performance-enhancing effects of amphetamine in Amphetamine#Enhancing performance, which you and many others reviewed in its 5 FAC nominations.

Comments by Axl[edit]

  • In the lead section, paragraph 2, is it necessary to include grapefruit as an example of a citrus fruit in the last sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Grapefruit is mentioned in more sources than citrus fruit, so I went ahead and removed the latter and kept the former in the lead. Seppi333 (Insert ) 11:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 3: "The effects of HMB on human skeletal muscle were first discovered by Steven L. Nissen at Iowa State University in the mid-1990s." Is Steven L. Nissen really a notable person who should be mentioned in the lead section? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. However neither Steven L. Nissen nor Iowa State University are mentioned in the rest of the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware that it isn't mentioned in the body, but the only place to put it would be in a History section which would contain a single sentence. I didn't think anyone would really care, but since this issue has come up I've created that section to address it. Steven Nissen is the founder of Metabolic Technologies, which jointly owns all the patents on HMB with the Iowa State University. Seppi333 (Insert ) 11:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Since Nergaal objected to the 1 sentence section, I'll recreate the history section if I can find some information to expand it with. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned in Nergaal's section above, I could expand the history section to a 3–4 sentence paragraph. Is that sufficient? Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
A short "History" section would be great. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll expand the section by sometime tomorrow and ping you when I'm done. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Axl: I've finished expanding the "History" section. Does it look ok to you? Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Pharmacology", is is possible to add HMB (and perhaps L-leucine) alongside amino acids in the first diagram? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. The font won't be a perfect match with the one used in the rest of the image though - is that ok? Seppi333 (Insert ) 12:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the image from [17] to [18]. If you're okay with that change, let me know and I'll update the captions in the articles where that image is used. Otherwise, I need to revert the image. Seppi333 (Insert ) 12:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The adjustment looks good. The new diagram also looks appropriate for the other two articles where it is used—as long as leucine and HMB are the primary mediators rather than other amino acids. Please go ahead and change the caption. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
According to the review that the image is from (not the caption, but the article text itself), leucine and its metabolites, specifically HMB, are the most significant modulators of MPS, which they affect through the illustrated mTOR signaling pathway.

Crucially, this negative protein balance is transiently reversed (MPS > MPB) after food intake (contingent on sufficient high‐quality protein), such that net protein balance is neutral on a daily basis (MPS = MPB). The mechanisms underlying the anabolic effects of food intake involve both the stimulation of MPS (Rennie et al. 1982) and suppression of MPB (Wilkes et al. 2009). The potent increase in MPS is driven almost entirely by essential amino acids (EAAs) (Smith et al. 1992), with the branched chain AA (BCAA: leucine, isoleucine and valine), in particular leucine [and its metabolite(s), e.g. β‐hydroxy β‐methylbutyric acid (HMB) (Van Koevering & Nissen 1992)] being central to these effects (Wilkinson et al. 2013). Although the mechanisms underlying the unique anabolic properties of leucine are incompletely defined, recent work in yeast and cultured mammalians cells has demonstrated that leucyl tRNA synthetase is upstream of activating the hitherto ‘cellular AA sensor’, the mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) in response to leucine (Bonfils et al. 2012, Han et al. 2012).
– the review linked above

The reference that they cite (Wilkinson et al. 2013) demonstrated that both leucine and HMB induce pronounced activation/phosphorylation of mTOR in humans, leading to increased myofibrillar MPS in skeletal muscle in vivo. Other amino acids also affect mTOR activity and myofibrillar MPS, but generally to a much lesser extent than leucine. Anyway, I'll go ahead and update the captions a little later today. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that "AA" is used twice in the graph at the bottom, so I need to revise the image to add something like "and HMB" beneath "amino acids (AA)" tomorrow when I have more time. I've reverted my change to the image for now. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've reuploaded the image with "Amino Acids (AA) or HMB" as the replacement text (Link to current version). I don't think the current captions need to be changed with this text replacement. Is this change ok with you? Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Pharmacology", subsection "Pharmacodynamics", paragraph 1: "Chronic supplementation with HMB for one month in rats." I am not convinced that one month is "chronic". (The word "chronic" usually refers to longterm diseases.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Removing that word is fine with me. I've cut it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 05:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Axl: The sentence "The signaling cascade that mediates the HMB-induced increase in human skeletal muscle protein synthesis has been identified in vivo." isn't entirely correct. HMB's immediate biomolecular target isn't mTOR (mTOR does function as an energy and amino acid sensor, but I'm not sure that HMB is "sensed" by mTOR analogous to how most proteinogenic amino acids do, which modulate mTOR activity through its capacity to "sense" protein precursor availability via amino acid signaling through the Rag family of GTPases (Rag GTPases) [see diagram – top left box]) - HMB would need to bind to a receptor or a different enzyme which induces mTOR phosphorylation as a downstream effect in its signaling cascade. HMB's proximal biomolecular target(s) in humans aren't currently known (this is why I included information on potential upstream targets in the pharmacodynamics section based upon in vitro and animal studies with HMB which detected signaling events involving IGF-1, Akt, and mitogen activated protein kinases), but components of its signaling cascade downstream have been identified in humans in vivo - namely mTOR phosphorylation, mTORC1 activation, p70S6 kinase phosphorylation, and 4EBP1 phosphorylation. Would you mind if I changed this sentence back to how it was or if we revised it to reflect the fact that it's immediate biomolecular target isn't known? Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The original sentence was: "As of May 2016, components of the signaling cascade that mediate the HMB-induced increase in human skeletal muscle protein synthesis have been identified in vivo." It certainly was not clear to me that some aspects of the cascade are still unknown. You might assert that omission of the definite article (i.e. stating just "components" rather than "the components") implies that not necessarily all components are known.
How about "many components", "most components" or "some components"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"Many" would probably be best out of those 3. Personally, I'd probably go with "several", but I'll leave it up to you. In case you want to read the relevant literature, this primary source was the basis for that statement - it's cited by and covered in the 3 reviews which support that or the following sentence. One of the reviews is authored by many of the same individuals who authored that primary source, so I figured citing it in that section along with the reviews would be reasonable. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
That source is heavy going, especially as I have no expertise in this field. While it is clear that HMB's (insulin-independent) prevention of muscle protein breakdown is not fully understood, its effect on muscle protein synthesis seems to be better elucidated. Anyway, "several" would be fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the wording in that sentence accordingly. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Pharmacology", subsection "Pharmacodynamics", paragraph 1. The first half of the paragraph is about human skeletal muscle, while the second half is about the less-well understood non-muscle protein. Would you consider splitting the paragraph into two distinct paragraphs? I realise that this would leave each with only two sentences. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason that I grouped them together is that the sources discussed the latter effect (IGF-1 signaling) in the context of increased mTOR phosphorylation. I could split the paragraph if you really think it's necessary, but it is discussing the phenomenon in context of same context as the former sentences (mTOR signaling). This is why I grouped the sentences together. Are you sure you want me to split it into 2 paragraphs in light of this? Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I asked you to consider it. You have done so, and you still think that a single paragraph is better. Let's leave it as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From "Pharmacology", subsection "Pharmacokinetics", paragraph 1: "The plasma clearance of HMB-FA, which reflects tissue uptake and utilization, is roughly 25–40% higher than the clearance of HMB-Ca as well." I am unconvinced that plasma clearance reflects tissue uptake and utilization. Actually the phrase "plasma clearance" is somewhat vague. Is this the same as "clearance (pharmacology)"? (Have a look at this reference.) It is very peculiar that HMB-FA has a higher "plasma clearance" while also having a longer elimination half-life (as indicated by the preceding sentence). I am aware that the source (Wilson) states: "Perhaps the most intriguing findings were that plasma clearance, indicative of tissue uptake and utilization, was 25% greater with HMB-FA consumption compared with an equivalent HMB-CA consumption." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
That statement ("... which reflects tissue uptake and utilization") comes from both of the cited sources (a primary study on HMB pharmacokinetics and a review). From my reading into the sources, I believe it's referring to the plasma clearance into body tissues, primarily skeletal muscle wherein it is metabolized, not clearance into urine by the kidneys. I don't entirely understand the mechanics that mediate this effect. Do you have a proposed rewording? Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Both papers misuse the term "[plasma] clearance". This makes me uneasy about accepting them as references for the claim about tissue uptake.
A suitable statement might be "Tissue uptake and utilization of HMB-FA is 25–40% higher than for HMB-Ca." Is there another source that provides this information without mentioning "clearance"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look and follow up if I can find anything. I'll probably use your suggested version either way. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This study in rats (by Shreeram) indicates higher bioavailability for Ca-HMB. Regarding clearance, Shreeram states: "This observation is in agreement with Fuller et al. who observed a 25% increase in the systemic clearance of FAHMB compared with CaHMB." Shreeram also mentions: "Another plausible explanation for the increased clearance of FAHMB might be rapid tissue uptake and/or oxidation compared with CaHMB." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Compared to HMB-FA, HMB-Ca has a higher relative bioavailability in rats and a lower relative bioavailability in humans. I'm hesitant to use an animal study to cite PK info for this reason. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Axl: I've reworded the statement per your suggestion. Only these 2 studies with HMB in humans - PMID 21134325 & PMID 26373270 - appear to cover the difference in tissue uptake/utilization between HMB-Ca and HMB-FA. On a related note, our definition in the lead of the clearance (pharmacology) article appears to be in agreement with how PMID 15601437 (i.e., the study about plasma clearance that you linked) defines it. I don't really see any inconsistency between how the 2 cited sources (the ISSN review and PMID 26373270) and PMID 15601437 use the term "plasma clearance"; the latter article indicates that metabolism and/or excretion in organs (e.g., skeletal muscle) other than the lungs, kidneys, and liver contributes to plasma clearance. Per its abstract, "Plasma (total, systemic...) clearance is determined by all the individual metabolizing/eliminating organ clearances and involves mainly liver and kidney clearances.". Nonetheless, I now realize that the way I originally wrote that statement ("The plasma clearance of HMB-FA, which reflects tissue uptake and utilization, is roughly 25–40% higher than the clearance of HMB-Ca as well") was incorrect because it suggested that ALL of HMB's plasma clearance is due to tissue uptake and utilization (i.e., due to HMB metabolism to cholesterol, presumably mostly in skeletal muscle, or to acetyl-CoA in various body tissues). This is clearly false because its renal excretion rate is 10–40%, as stated in the article and the sources which cite that statement. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I am happy with the current statements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Pharmacology", subsection "Biosynthesis", the diagram has a misspelling: "β-methyl-gluconly-CoA" on the right should be "β-methyl-gluconyl-CoA". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed: Before After. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Pharmacology", subsection "Biosynthesis", the diagram appears to show two pathways that re-join at the end as acetyl-CoA. However, alongside HMB-CoA, there is a (reversible) reaction to MC-CoA. Use of the abbreviation here makes the diagram less obvious that this is the same chemical as β-methyl-crotonyl-CoA. Shouldn't these two be conflated, so that there is a sort of "triangle" between HMB, HMB-CoA and MC-CoA, straddling both sides of diagram? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read the original source in which the image was first published (IIRC, it's a 1990 paper by Stevem Nissen), but I think the rationale for drawing the image that way was to emphasize the fact that, whenever biotin is deficient or in instances of MC-CoA carboxylase deficiency, MC-CoA metabolism is diverted away from its standard pathway and ultimately results (through unspecified mechanisms) in large urinary concentrations of HMB w/ no effect on urinary HMB-CoA concentrations; the increase in urinary HMB above the basal concentrations found in healthy adult urine appears to be about 10−100-fold and 1000-fold for biotin deficiency and MC-CoA carboxylase deficiency, respectively. The intermediate steps were probably also glossed over by the authors who drew it because the reactions involved in those circumstances aren't fully understood.[note 1] I've been thinking about creating a new biosynthesis diagram to address some of the issues with the current one. Besides the fact that it illustrates a single pathway between HMB and MC-CoA in two different parts of the diagram (i.e., HMB ← HMB-CoA ← MC-CoA and HMB → HMB-CoA ↔ MC-CoA; this should really just be illustrated as HMB ↔ HMB-CoA ↔ MC-CoA, with a note that the "←" direction dominates during biotin deficiency), some of the pathways that are covered in the metabolism section aren't reflected in that image. I don't have time to draw an entirely new diagram at the moment, but it's on my to-do list. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If you think it's worth covering what I've mentioned in the note[note 1] in the metabolism section, let me know. I didn't think HMB-carnitine to be a notable intermediate product in the metabolism of HMB because it's converted back into HMB-CoA, although it might also be directly converted to HMB. This wouldn't be the first time that I've omitted mention of an intermediate product in an FA or FA-nominated article though.[note 2] I haven't done a thorough literature search on the carnitine intermediate, so I only know of a single ref - this primary source[1] - that covers component of HMB's metabolic pathway. If you think it's worth adding to the article, I'll see if I can find a review that covers the metabolism of "3-hydroxyisovaleryl carnitine" to 3-hydroxyisovaleric acid (aka HMB).Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Pharmacology", subsection "Biosynthesis", the diagram does not show that the conversion of MC-CoA and MG-CoA to HMB-CoA and HMG-CoA occur during biotin deficiency. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, the diagram does not show the conversion of HMB-CoA to HMB (during biotin deficiency) at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, I'm probably going to draw an entirely new diagram to illustrate the more comprehensive info in the 3-Hydroxyisovaleric acid#Metabolism section and address the issues with the current one. I'm hoping to get around to this within the few weeks.Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Pharmacology", subsection "Biosynthesis", paragraph 2 mentions β-methylcrotonoyl-CoA, while the diagram indicates β-methyl-crotonyl-CoA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Added a hyphen to the text. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was more concerned about the -oyl vs -yl suffix. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't even notice that; I've removed the o. It's now "β-methylcrotonyl-CoA". Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
lol, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From "Pharmacology", subsection "Biosynthesis", paragraph 2: "During biotin deficiency, HMB can be synthesized from MC-CoA via enoyl-CoA hydratase and an unknown thioesterase enzyme, which convert MC-CoA into β-hydroxy β-methylbutyryl-CoA (HMB-CoA) and HMB-CoA into HMB respectively." Does the unknown thioesterase convert MC-CoA into HMB-CoA? (I think so, but the sentence needs to have the syntax & formatting adjusted.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that it does; the function of this "unknown thioesterase" enzyme is to cleave off the CoA group from a substrate molecule. If it were to accept MC-CoA as a substrate as well, it would probably cleave it into beta-methyl-crotonic acid and free CoA. Enoyl-CoA hydratase is responsible for HMB-CoA ↔ MC-CoA; the unknown thioesterase is responsible for HMB-CoA → HMB + free CoA. The statement is cited by the first and last sentences of this reference's quote.[1] For context, "3HIA" is HMB and "3-hydroxyisovaleryl CoA" is HMB-CoA. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In that case, the diagram seems to contradict the text. The diagram shows conversion of MC-CoA directly to HMB via enol-CoA hydrase [not hydratase]. There is no implication of a thioesterase at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I'm aware. This is the specific pathway that I was referring to above with the statements: "I haven't read the original source in which the image was first published (IIRC, it's a 1990 paper by Stevem Nissen), but I think the rationale for drawing the image that way was to emphasize the fact that, whenever biotin is deficient or in instances of MC-CoA carboxylase deficiency, MC-CoA metabolism is diverted away from its standard pathway and ultimately results (through unspecified mechanisms) in large urinary concentrations of HMB w/ no effect on urinary HMB-CoA concentrations ... The intermediate steps were probably also glossed over by the authors who drew it because the reactions involved in those circumstances aren't fully understood". I probably should have clarified that I was specifically referring to the somewhat misleading depiction of MC-CoA → HMB being catalyzed by enoyl-CoA hydratase alone, along with the second depiction of an HMB-CoA ↔ MC-CoA pathway, when I said this - my bad. In any event, "enol-CoA hydrase" is a less common synonym of "enoyl CoA hydratase"; if you want me to add a "y" to "enol" and a "ta" after the "hydra", I probably could make that change to the image without making it look odd. As for the thioesterase, if you'd like me to add that to the image then I'd probably delete the "enol-CoA hydrase" and use the closest font in MS Paint to the one used in the image to add "enoyl CoA hydratase + unknown thioesterase". Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I don't mind whether "enoyl-CoA hydratase" or "enol-CoA hydrase" is used, but the text should be consistent with the diagram. If "enoyl-CoA hydratase" is more commonly used, then this is preferable. I don't think that two enzymes should be applied to a single step in the diagram. Rather, enoyl-CoA hydratase should lead to HMB-CoA, then the thioesterase should show conversion of HMB-CoA to HMB. [Sorry for the delayed response. I am currently on holiday.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I'll see what I can do about adjusting the graphic accordingly. I should be able to do this over the next day or two. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Axl: before after - how's that look? I can't add new text to the image in paint; it ends up looking awful, but I managed to change enol CoA-hydrase to enoyl CoA-hydratase using the image text and add HMB-CoA as a product of enoyl CoA-hydratase using arrows and the same text in the iamge. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That's an improvement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In "Chemistry", could any information about melting point, boiling point & density be added? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
MOS:PHARM notes that basic chem/phys properties should just be covered in the drugbox, but I don't mind adding the melting point and density if you think it's worth covering these. The BP isn't that notable since, at normal atmospheric pressure, it decomposes instead of boiling at high temperatures. Would you like me to add a sentence on the MP and density? Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay. No need to for any change. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", paragraph 1: "The pKa of HMB-FA is 4.4, which is higher than the pH of gastric acid." I suppose that the implication is that in the stomach, HMB-FA exists mainly as the free acid form rather than conjugate base form. Can this be mentioned in the article? If not, it might better to remove the reference to gastric pH. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    Removed it. Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ a b c d e f g Mock DM, Stratton SL, Horvath TD, Bogusiewicz A, Matthews NI, Henrich CL, Dawson AM, Spencer HJ, Owen SN, Boysen G, Moran JH (November 2011). "Urinary excretion of 3-hydroxyisovaleric acid and 3-hydroxyisovaleryl carnitine increases in response to a leucine challenge in marginally biotin-deficient humans". J. Nutr. 141 (11): 1925–1930. doi:10.3945/jn.111.146126. PMC 3192457free to read. PMID 21918059. Reduced activity of MCC impairs catalysis of an essential step in the mitochondrial catabolism of the BCAA leucine. Metabolic impairment diverts methylcrotonyl CoA to 3-hydroxyisovaleryl CoA in a reaction catalyzed by enoyl-CoA hydratase (22, 23). 3-Hydroxyisovaleryl CoA accumulation can inhibit cellular respiration either directly or via effects on the ratios of acyl CoA:free CoA if further metabolism and detoxification of 3-hydroxyisovaleryl CoA does not occur (22). The transfer to carnitine by 4 carnitine acyl-CoA transferases distributed in subcellular compartments likely serves as an important reservoir for acyl moieties (39–41). 3-Hydroxyisovaleryl CoA is likely detoxified by carnitine acetyltransferase producing 3HIA-carnitine, which is transported across the inner mitochondrial membrane (and hence effectively out of the mitochondria) via carnitine-acylcarnitine translocase (39). 3HIA-carnitine is thought to be either directly deacylated by a hydrolase to 3HIA or to undergo a second CoA exchange to again form 3-hydroxyisovaleryl CoA followed by release of 3HIA and free CoA by a thioesterase. 
Notes
  1. ^ a b MC-CoA appears to be converted to HMB-CoA only at the inner mitochondrial membrane, since this is where enoyl-CoA hydratase is localized in humans.[1] Subsequently, HMB-CoA is then converted to a carnitine intermediate ("3-hydroxyisovaleryl carnitine" aka "beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyryl carnitine") for translocation across the inner mitochondrial membrane and into the mitochondrial intermembrane space;[1] Once across the membrane, HMB-carnitine is then converted either directly to HMB or first to HMB-CoA and then HMB.[1] These reactions would probably take place somewhere in the same cell outside of mitochondria, like in the cytosol or at the cell membrane, but could occur in the mitochondrial intermembrane space or at the outer mitochondrial membrane.
    So, in a nutshell, the metabolism of MC-CoA to HMB occurs through one or both of the following 2 pathways:[1]
     • MC-CoA → HMB-CoA → HMB-carnitine → HMB
     • MC-CoA → HMB-CoA → HMB-carnitine → HMB-CoA → HMB

    The 2nd pathway is more notable since all reviews on HMB's metabolism that I've read have discussed the HMB-CoA → HMB reaction.
    HMB-carnitine → HMB would occur via an unknown hydrolase enzyme.[1]
    HMB-carnitine → HMB-CoA might be catalyzed the same enzyme that mediated the HMB-carnitine → HMB-CoA reaction.
  2. ^ Amphetamine is metabolized into a compound called "amphetamine hydroxylamine", a potentially toxic metabolite, in the process of being converted to phenylacetone, an inactive metabolite; however, the same enzyme that catalyzes the conversion from amphetamine to amphetamine hydroxylamine (FMO3) also catalyzes the conversion of amphetamine hydroxylamine to phenylacetone, where the hydroxylamine compound would remain bound to the enzyme during this multi-step process. This metabolite isn't covered in the amphetamine article or its metabolism graphic because it requires an overly long and technical explanation to explain why it's a biologically active and likely toxic metabolite which doesn't exert a detectable toxic effect on cells and is not detectable in body fluids following amphetamine metabolism (see the discussion at User talk:Boghog/Archive 7#Metabolites).

    Similar to the metabolism of HMB involving HMB-carnitine, the metabolism of amphetamine to its hydroxylamine intermediates appears to only be covered by specialized primary sources on certain enzymes or the intermediate compounds. All medical reviews from 2010-2016 that cover amphetamine's detectable metabolites in blood plasma and urine lack mention of these intermediates.

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)
Resuming
  • "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)
Lead
  • A five-paragraph lead is contrary to the MoS recommendation of a maximum four. Overall I think the lead is a little overdetailed; it should be a very concise summary of the subject with the details confined to the text. The first paragraph is fine, but I think the remained should be condensed into three shorter paragraphs. In particular, the final paragraph could be reduced to a single sentence, since these various adaptations are all given in the text.
  • I went ahead and implemented your recommendation regarding the final paragraph. Reading the rest of it, and knowing the case, it seems compressed to me already, and taking more out would leave out important details. But I'm open to any other recommendations if you think it's still too long. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "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)
Discovery
  • "Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open across where the vulva would be." I would end this sentence at "torn open"; the remaining detail is overspecific and unnecessary.
Police investigation
  • "Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands..." – whose description of Frank's behavior is this?
  • "...and asking questions before the police could answer" – I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely, questions always precede amswers?
  • This quote from the Oney book should clarify the previous two comments:

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

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

Mr. Frank seemed to be extremely nervous. His questions were jumpy ... His voice was a refined voice ... kind of lady-like ... He was rubbing his hands ... He seemed to be excited.
  • Frank tells the police that he did not recognise the name Mary Phagan, but later says Phagan was in his office between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m on Saturday? Is this not contradictory?
  • 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)
Resuming at last! Will post soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A few more sections:

James "Jim" Conley'
  • Can you clarify why Conley was kept in custody long after the police had decided that his shirt was not bloodstained? Why were they holding him?
  • The Oney text just mentions that he made "a statement the detectives didn't even bother to take until fifteen days after his arrest". Apparently he didn't post bail due to his financial circumstances, but the text doesn't specify and thus we don't mention it in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "At trial, Conley changed his story..." At what trial? Frank's or his own?
    • It was Frank's trial – Conley did not have a separate trial. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "He said Frank withheld the money until he had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace." Needs rephrasing, e.g. "He said Frank decided to withhold the money until Conley had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace."
Media coverage
  • "As many as" is unnecessary editorial emphasis.
  • Done, and wrote out "Forty" to start the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "prepared ten militia companies": a better word than "prepared" might be "organized"
  • " Albert Lindemann ... opined that "ordinary people" may have had difficulty in evaluating the often unreliable information and "suspend[ing] judgment over a long period of time" while the case developed". Sentence not grammatatical as written. Maybe add "were" after the "and"
  • I moved the word 'in' to be before the second -ing word rather than the first. This should help some. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Trial
  • Second para: I'd reorganise this, so that the present second and third sentence are placed at the end of the paragraph. The prose would flow more naturally.
  • "bloodstains" is one word
  • "The defense theory..." – delete the word "theory"
  • "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's alibi, which suggested he did not have enough time to commit the crime". This sentence needs strengthening; an alibi that merely "suggests" something is not much of an alibi. I suugest: "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's account of his movements, which indicated he did not have enough time to commit the crime".
  • "The prosecution's analysis of stomach contents placed the time of death at 30 to 45 minutes after the last meal. Of this analysis, the defense's expert witness contested both the methodology and the conclusions". I'd say "her last meal", and delete the words "Of this analysis". Can you explain the grounds on which the defense contested this analysis?
  • Changed to 'her', and the defense is mentioned in the next sentence regarding the inflammation, as well as later in the paragraph where Arnold, one of Frank's attorneys with prior medical experience, rebuts some prosecution arguments. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry for the slow progress but here is more:

Trial
  • You should link Dorsey at first mention, in the previous section.
Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Frank's alleged sexual behavior
  • What is the significance of mentioning "Monteen Stover"? How does he/she fit into the narrative? (I see this is answered later, but you need greater clarity at this point)
  • I removed the mention of her from this section and reworded some of this section slightly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "cross-examined unsuccessfully" – what does this mean? If it means that they could not break his story you should say so.
  • I removed "unsuccessfully" and specifically stated that the defense failed to break Conley's story. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Judge Roan recognized..." – that's the wrong verb. "Said", "remarked", "ruled", there are many better alternatives.
  • I changed this to 'noted' and changed "would allow" to "allowed". Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Timeframe
  • "vivid parts" – "vivid" is wrong. "Crucial" is the word.
  • "whose father worked for the Montags" – who/what are "the Montags"?
  • I removed the name Montags, but clarified that they were a family who owned a stake of the pencil factory that Frank managed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Frank's attorneys located witnesses to dispute the alleged early departure from lunch". What is the nature of this allegation, and who made it?
  • This is addressed in the rest of the paragraph. It mentions some witnesses who saw Frank walking outside at a later time. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "the locked up factory" needs a hyphen. When was the factory locked, and who locked it?
  • I added the hyphen, and the page cited just mentions what the article does about it being locked up, although a previous page noted that they locked up at 6 PM. This was during the incident where a fired employee came back at that time to retrieve items he had left in the factory. We could specify this here, although I don't believe it's necessary. We could even leave out the locked-up part in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Conviction and sentencing
  • This seems very sudden: no closing arguments, speeches, summaries? No mention of how long it took the jury to reach a verdict?
Appeals
  • "Frank's absence from the court when the verdict was announced..." Shouldn't this have been mentioned in your trial account section? It seems important to know why Frank was not in court to hear the verdict.
  • There's some pretty dense legal stuff in this section. I found this particularly daunting: " Louis Marshall, President of the American Jewish Committee and constitutional lawyer, urged them to raise the point, and the decision was made that it should be made clear that if the extraordinary motion was rejected they intended to appeal through the federal court system and there would be an impression of injustice in the trial." Is there a less wordy way of getting this point across, if indeed it is necessary?
  • "the significance of the Carter letters was disputed" → "the significance of Conley's letters to Annie Carter was disputed"
  • "the testimony as it related to" → "the testimony relating to"
  • "should have been raised earlier in the process" – delete last three words, as implied
Commutation hearing
  • "including one written by Judge Roan shortly before he died..." When did Roan die? This should have been mentioned earlier.
  • "Smith analyzed the notes and produced a 100-page analysis" → "Smith produced a 100-page analysis of the notes"
  • You have: "The commutation ... was unpopular with most Atlantans" but later: "The public was outraged. A mob threatened to attack the governor at his home..." which sounds like a lot more than "unpopular".
  • I went ahead and took out this phrase since the next subsection specifically deals with the public reaction. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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)

Comment: It's a pity that this article hasn't attracted a bit more reviewer atttention, but perhaps I can get some discussion going:

  • On three occasions in the article – twice in the lead and once in the "Rally" section – the word "prior" is used incorrectly as an adverb. Some dictionaries (not Oxford) suggest "priorly" as the adverbial form, but a standard word such as "previously" would serve better.
    • Hmm, really? I replaced "prior" with "previously" in all three instances, though it reads funny to me. @Brianboulton: What about "one week earlier" or "72 hours earlier"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, you could say "earlier" in place of the first "previously", and leave the others. That would read well. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think in the first sentence you should say "a gay male couple" rather than just "a gay couple"
  • You should also mention in the lead the severity of the assault. At present there is no indication in the lead whether the assault was a mere shove, or a violent, near-homicidal attack.
    • I replaced "attacked" with "physically assaulted". Does that help? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On occasion the prose tends to be non-neutral, e.g. "even though it was only publicized by a single Facebook page just 72 hours prior". This aspect of the prose needs watching.
    • I don't see how this wording is biased, but I am happy to address any specific concerns if you can note wording and alternatives. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The use of "even", "only" and "just" in a single phrase affects its neutrality and directs readers' responses. Omitting these words. " More than 4,000 people attended the rally, which had been publicized on a single Facebook page 72 hours previously" gives the same information without nuance. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to trim the See also section to maybe the second and third links.

An unusual article, thanks for working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to review this article. I am happy to continue responding to your comments and concerns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
My pleasure. I can't promise to revisit, but I'll keep watching it and chip in further if/when I can. Hopefully. others will, tooBrianboulton (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Thanks for replying. I believe I've addressed your concerns. If that earns your support, I'd appreciate a follow-up. If you prefer not to support, thanks for offering feedback and helping to improve this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • When I click on Reference 36, I get linked to a page that says “Oops! That page can’t be found.” This may just be a problem on my end, but I would suggest archiving this page.
  • References 17 and 31 are dead and need to be archived.
  • In the final sentence of the final paragraph of the “Assault” subsection, you mention the “initial plans” for the Q Patrols. The phrasing “initial plans” suggest that there was some sort of change, but this is not addressed in the page.
    • I don't know the fate of the Q Patrols, but I changed the wording to "Plans were made to have Q Patrols", which I hope is less ambiguous. ---Anot