Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article 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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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 Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks
Shortcut:

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1999 NFC Championship Game[edit]

Nominator(s): Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the NFC Championship Game. It is a well known play in NFL history that is pointed to as the prime reason why an all-time great team didn't reach the Super Bowl. I started this page as a draft and just made it to an article. I believe that it is of featured article quality. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Millipede[edit]

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about an important invertebrate group. Much of the article was expanded over the years to a high standard by Animalparty with whom I have been in contact before nominating it. I think the article is clear and well written and have been polishing it up. I look forward to your comments for further improvement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellie (The Last of Us)[edit]

Nominator(s): – Rhain ☔ 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellie is the deuteragonist and secondary playable character in Naughty Dog's 2013 video game The Last of Us. The character of Ellie underwent numerous iterations throughout development, and was very highly praised after the game's launch, particularly due to the rarity of such strong female characters in video games. After several changes and a great amount of feedback—including the first FA nomination—I feel satisfied that the article meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain ☔ 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Science-Fiction Plus[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray. There are only seven issues of the magazine, so the sources are a little thin, but the article covers everything I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Publication history:

  • "but he did not return to the field for nearly seventeen years, when Science-Fiction Plus appeared": suggest to specify "return to the sf field" for extra clarity.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and in theory should have given Gernsback a marketing edge": probably better to mention in the text the writer whose opinion this is.
    I think this doesn't need attribution -- it's not controversial (i.e. it's not a matter of opinion) in the world of magazines that slick format is a marketing advantage, so I think if I attributed it inline it would give readers the wrong impression. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and if the circulation of the new magazine had been comparable to that of his other titles it would have been profitable despite the more expensive slick paper": here too.
    I also don't feel this needs attribution; I don't think this is opinion. Slick paper was definitely more expensive; what's really being cited here is that the circulation Gernsback hoped for would have been enough to cover the extra cost of the paper, and that seems like a factual statement to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Contents and reception:

  • "it evolved away from his focus on facts and education, and became more mature": I'm not sure what "mature" implies here; also may be better to specify the writer whose opinion this is.
    I cut "and became more mature"; I think it would be a digression to explain this and the important point is that sf was no longer focused on education. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The editor, Sam Moskowitz, also had a long history in the field, having helped organize the First World Science Fiction Convention in 1939, and he too had strong views about what constituted good science fiction, though his views did not always coincide with those of his publisher": quite a long sentence, with lots of clauses. Possibly consider breaking it up into two sentences?
    Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Moskowitz was the one in charge of obtaining stories, and he succeeded in acquiring work by many of the best-known names in sf, including Clifford Simak, Murray Leinster, Robert Bloch, and Philip José Farmer, but he also bought many stories by writers from the early years of the genre, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates." Also a little long, with three independent clauses. But if you feel it's a matter of preference, I won't insist.
    This one I'd like to leave as is, because the "but" construction is what makes it long, and that's necessary for the "result" statement in the next sentence. I don't see an easy way to shorten it because of the lists of names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The result was a magazine that felt old-fashioned, despite its smart appearance: in Ashley's words, "for a magazine to be 'slick', it didn't just have to look slick, it had to feel it, but in the case of Science-Fiction Plus all that glittered clearly was not gold"." Consider specifying whose opinion it is that it "felt old-fashioned". The quote from Ashley does not precisely support this.
    I'm on the fence about this. The only two sources that spend time discussing the magazine in detail are Lawler and Ashley, and they both support this; Ashley calls the magazine "archaic" and Lawler describes it as "an anachronism". From my own knowledge of the field, I would say this is uncontroversial -- that is, nobody knowledgeable about the field would disagree. However, it is an opinion, even if it's one shared by all the sources. If I attribute the statement to Lawler and/or Ashley, I'm concerned that the reader will think it's not a unanimous opinion, which would be misleading. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, and the copyedit; your commas look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent political figures of the 20th century, a man who established the Soviet Union and whose ideas had a colossal impact on the global communist movement. In recent months it has been awarded GA status and has undergone a peer review; now is the time for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Congratulations on bringing forward what looks like an impressively well-researched article. I am semi-detached from Wikipedia at the moment, largely confining myself to TFA and revising/updating my old FA nominations, with only occasional reviewing. So I doubt I'll be able to give this fine effort the attention it deserves. However, here are a few superficial observations for you to consider:

  • IB: it's not as long as some of those for comparable world figures, but it still plunges into the text. Does all the information in it qualify as "key facts", which is what IBs were originally designed for? Do we, for example, need "Succeeded by..." (is that "key"?), or all the brothers and sisters, or the non-information about children, or the list of "other names"? Worth a thought.
    • A very fair point. I have removed the list of "other names", because no references were provide for it. I have also removed the "Children: None" section, and the "Soviet" part of Nationality. That has cut the infobox down a little bit, although the change is admittedly not substantial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Still with the IB, is "Soviet" a nationality? Also, is "Revolutionary" an "occupation" as we generally understand the term?
    • I've removed "Soviet" as a nationality; I think that "Revolutionary" may count as an "occupation" because the latter is distinguished from "profession" in the infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Over-citation. The total number of cited refs (577) is the most I've seen in a WP article by a long chalk, and since most of these contain at least three or four separate book refs, there are probably 2000+ citations in the article. This is fairly staggering. I note a particular tendency to over-cite simple facts: I see no purpose in ref 1, a dictionary definition of "Lenin". And do we need three book references to verify that "Ilya married Maria Alexandrovna Blank in the summer of 1863"? Or five to confirm "Every summer they holidayed at a rural manor in Kokushkino"? (these are random examples)
    • Ref 1 has been included (not by me, but by someone else) because it provides a useful citation regarding how to pronounce "Lenin"; so it's not there to bolster the definition but rather the pronunciation, so one that basis I would support its continued inclusion. As for the quantity of referencing, this is again something that I would defend; Lenin is a very controversial figure and there may well be individuals trying to change bits and pieces in order to push a particular political agenda - having multiple, clear citations to scholarly biographical studies are very useful in that scenario. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, yes for those aspects of Lenin which attract controversy, but surely not Ilya's wedding or the family's holiday destination? Or other mundane facts. If this article is promoted as things stand, it will be the 10th longest FA on the basis of wordcount, but the largest of all in terms of overall file size, at 769kb – the current longest FA, Elvis Presley, has 587kb. It might be that none of your other reviewers raises this concern, in which case well and good; I'm not going to labour the point, but I think it should be borne in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to check "p." and "pp." in your page range formats. I have something for an eye for these things, and you should look at ref 6 (Lih) and 25 (Rice), and check for others.
    • I've gone through and corrected all of the errors that I could find here. I think that I've got them all although if anyone else comes upon any then please do let me know so that I can make a correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's all for now, but I will watch developments with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Brian. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment – The article is potentially of FA standard at first glance, but I don't propose to give it the close reading it merits until something is done about the spelling, which at present is a hotchpotch of English and American. We have criticised and criticizing, center and centre, neighboring and neighbouring, sympathisers and sympathizers. Alongside the BrE baptised, capitalised, emphasising, enamoured, favouring, haemorrhage, labour, normalise, organisation, theorising etc, we have the AmE defense, goiter, honors, misbehavior, realizing, traveling etc. BrE spellings are in the majority, I think, but there is a substantial minority of AmE spellings. I suppose theoretically, under WP:ENGVAR the first version of the page should be found that contains an identifiably BrE or AmE spelling and whichever it is should be adopted for this article, but that isn't possible here, because the first one in which such a distinction is to be found (28 July 2002) contains both BrE – practise (verb) and travelled – and AmEng – license (noun). I'd be happy to standardise the spelling, if wanted, with the aid of a little program I use that makes it a quick and simple task. But standardised it must be if the article is to reach FA standard. – Tim riley talk 08:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That program sounds great, do you have a url for it? - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Alas, it was cobbled together for me by a techie friend and sits somewhere on my old PC. I've an idea it draws on some available freeware but I'm not sure. Tim riley talk 12:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts, Tim. There is a tag on the talk page stating that the article uses British English so I think it best if we standardise it to that. I've gone through the article and made all of the changes that I could spot, namely those which you have already mentioned. If there are any further examples that need changing then please do let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The spelling is now all fine. I'll begin a close reading tonight or tomorrow and will report back here a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No. 91 Wing RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Nowadays when the Royal Australian Air Force has to deploy a mixed bag of aircraft to support a foreign war it forms an air task group, but in the 1950s it was "composite" wings. This article is about the one established to administer RAAF units in the Korean War, contemporaneous with No. 90 Wing (subject of a recent FAC) in the Malayan Emergency. No. 91 Wing's story is in effect – for those interested – an overview of the RAAF's entire involvement in Korea. Tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 June 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) 19:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • All of the images are PD-Australia, but all have dates of after 1946 - are we sure the US copyright would not have been restored? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Well they're all Australian War Memorial images that would fall into the same category as say the 1953 picture from the recently promoted Reg Pollard, which passed muster -- happy to finetune the tagging on these if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Does the govt worldwide release notice from the Pollard image apply to all AWM images? If so, think we should include that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I believe it applies to every AWM image that they've marked similarly to the Pollard shot, which includes all the images in the 91 Wing article, so happy to make consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Standardised the tagging per above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – very readable, evidently comprehensive, well and widely sourced – and blessedly concise (unlike some other FACs we see now and again, no names, no packdrill). Happy to support for FA. Tim riley talk 16:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Life's too short for anything but summary style... ;-) Many tks Tim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lynx (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about yet another constellation..but at least it's in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere so Juliancolton and Courcelles can actually see it...though the light pollution might make it really difficult :P. Anyway, I started buffing it for POTD and just kept going. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

NB: It's a wikicup nomination...

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

Some issues that should be easy to fix:

  • The "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N@TNG" reference has a slight mangle in its name. It should be "The GAPS programme with HARPS-N at TNG". Also in this the authorlist looks to be truncated, so perhaps would have "et al" appearing.
Heh, interesting conversion to '@' - fixed now. Fixed authorlist Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Long-Term VRI Photometry of Small-Amplitude Red Variables. I. Light Curves and Periods" reference should have full page numbers: 983–996
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Periodicities of the light curve of the semiregular variable star Y Lyncis" reference should have full page numbers: 321–328
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Validation of the New Hipparcos Reduction" reference should have full page numbers: 653–654
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders: From Novice to Master Observer" reference should have full page numbers: 302–307
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The 0.5Mj transiting exoplanet WASP-13b" reference should have full page numbers: 391–94
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Deep Sky Objects. Amherst,reference should have page numbers 168–169
In these cases I always use last two digits only. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "H I Imaging Observations of Superthin Galaxies. II. IC 2233 and the Blue Compact Dwarf NGC 2537." has extra "." in title, and no DOI or bibcode. (bibcode=2008AJ....135..291M, doi=10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/291
removed period and added others Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
yup/good catch. overhauled ref to proper published one and stats Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Massive Star Burps, Then Explodes" is missing writing date 4 April 2007 and has retrieved date in wrong style.
Fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "NASA – Supernova Imposter Goes Supernova" has retrieved date in wrong style.
Retrieval dates fixed & {{use dmy dates}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the infobox meteor showers shows as ?????
oops, had forgotten to check. found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others. with two page ranges referencing several different things perhaps should get two references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
aaand ref split out now....answered all now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • in " Discovery of a large-scale clumpy structure of the Lynx supercluster at z∼1.27" "∼" character seems to be non standard, and does not display in my console window, perhaps ~ is the correct character.
substituted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For "ALPHA LYN (Alpha Lyncis) and ALSCIAUKAT (31 Lyncis)" reference, the star names are typed in all caps, but there is no separate title on that web page, and the html title is given as "Alpha and 31 Lyn". The html title looks to be preferable in appearance.
lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a person whose name is spelled three different ways: Johns‐krull, Johns-Krull and Johns‐Krull. Best to have them all the same.
streamlined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Two noninfobox pictures have no alt= text. This should describe what is seen in the image, and provide additional information to the caption, especially for people that cannot see the image.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Really there are not enough images. Perhaps there could be a sky image of the whole constellation. For each constellation I would also like to see a map with every visible star labelled with its designation, rather than just a spot, as our images on commons have, but this may be more appropriate for the list of stars in Lynx.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
there are none that are more detailed than the one in the infobox that are in English - this would be great in English. But might look odd with the infobox one as well. I will try to add some numbers to the infobox one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
see below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
nope/good catch. tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Lithopsian[edit]

Hard to find anything left that needs changing, but the meteor shower is generally called the September Lyncids, to distinguish from two other very faint showers in Lynx. For images, this could be annotated with star labels, perhaps labels for the stars mentioned in the text. Or this at least labels more than a single star. There are also several deep sky object images that could be added, although there is already one in that section. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett and Lithopsian, what I tried to do a few years ago was alter the infobox map. So for Canis Minor I made File:Canis Minor IAUflamsteed.png..but then I couldn't get it into the constellation infobox due to the coding, so moved it to File:Canis Minor IAU.svg (see history at bottom of that one) but I was reverted, probably because I stuffed some format up. Ideally, I'd like to put some flamsteed numbers on the map in the infobox as it seems silly to have two maps of the constellation otherwise. I am open to ideas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, from this list there are 13 but only one established (the Alpha Lyncids). So I think the rest are of questionalbe notability..yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


(Note to Lithopsian: please use level four (====) for subheaders, as level two messes the WP:FAC page up. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)}

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "It was introduced in the 17th century by Johannes Hevelius." The constellation or the name for the constellation? (I assume from what you say below it was the constellation but this should be made clear in the lead.)
I made it a subordinate clause of the previous sentence to minimise repetition - let me know if you think it's too long a sentence now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Six star systems have been found to contain planets. 6 Lyncis and HD 75898 were discovered to have planets by the Doppler method, while XO-2, XO-4 and XO-5 were found to have planets that were observed as they passed in front of them by the XO Telescope in Hawaii, and WASP-13 had a transiting planet discovered by the SuperWASP program." Why mention the telescopes which discovered four and not the other two? It does not seem important enough for the lead. "passed in front of them" is linked to "Methods of detecting extrasolar planets", which redirects to "Methods of detecting exoplanets". I think the general link to methods should be from "found to contain planets", and would suggest something like "XO-2, XO-4, XO-5 and WASP-13 when they were [[Transit (astronomy)|transited]] by planets". Similar comments apply to the discussion of exoplanets in the main text.
Agree about removing them from the lead and done. I think they should remain in the text as there were/are only a handful of telescopes detecting planets and they are interesting, notable and different - so I will preserve the links there I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the Lynx Supercluster, which was the most distant supercluster known at the time of its discovery." It would be interesting to know the date and distance.
date added - distance for very distant things is tricky to explain as it has to take into account the expansion of the universe and the inflation of the universe itself. Mostly things are referred to in redshift numbers. I am thinking of putting a footnote at fist mention of redshift to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "spectral type K7III" - can K7III be linked?
I have linked spectral type to Stellar_classification#Spectral_types. K7III means it's an orange giant. Orange giant now links to Giant star (forgot to link and now done so) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The only named star is Alsciaukat" - I found this puzzling. Do you not regard Alpha Lyncis and 12 Lyncis as names?
They are designations - it means Proper names (astronomy), which I have now reworded th clarify and linked to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest giving the magnitude for Alpha Lyncis and Alsciaukat.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The components are a yellow giant of spectral type G8III that is 4.01 ± 2.17 times as massive as the Sun, and an F-type main sequence star of spectral type F8V that is 3.73 times as massive as the Sun." So the mass of one of the pair is known to two decimal places, and the other only as between two and six times the size of the sun?
dunno what happened there or, looking back, how the "± 2.17" got into it. Removed now as can't find how it turned up now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The two are 10.6 au apart" I am not sure how familiar "au" is to laymen. I remembered that is stands for astronomical unit but had to look up what it meant. Maybe spell out 10.6 times as far apart as the earth and the sun?
have unabbreviated - added a footnote to explain distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent whether the distance is given - e.g. for 15 Lyncis but not for 12 Lyncis. (Is the information not available for 12 Lyncis?)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "convectively induced oscillatory thermal" - could this be linked?
have linked convection. The other just means temperature going up and down with oscillations... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lynx's most notable deep sky object is NGC 2419" - most notable but not enough to be mentioned in the lead?
added to lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Shapley class II cluster" - another it would be helpful to link if possible.
added a link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "a blue compact dwarf galaxy that is somewhere between 17 and 30 million light-years away from Earth." No change needed, but is the approximate distance compared with exact ones for other galaxies because no cepheids have been seen in it?
I suspect somesuch - standard candles are Very Useful Things... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the last two paragraphs you sometimes give objects redshift, sometimes distance in light years. (I assume this is due to differences in the sources, but presumably you could convert redshift to light years?) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Aargh. see this and this. Need to think about this...sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division was a British Army division that fought in several of the main battles of the First World War. Most notably, on 7 July 1916 it launched its initial attack on Mametz Wood that ended in failure. Over the following days, the division cleared the woods at a high cost. This paved the way for future British attacks on the Somme. In addition, it inspired Christopher Williams to paint a somewhat famous depiction of the events. It is my hope that the article can pass FA standards and be on the front page for the 100th anniversary of these events.

Following the Somme, the division became somewhat of an assault division and led the charge in numerous engagements throughout 1917 and 1918. The division was disbanded in 1919, and reformed in 1939. During the Second World War, the division engaged in home defense duties and eventually became a training division. The article has been copy edited, passed its GA review, and was on course to pass its A-Class review although a lack of reviewers has stalled that process.

I believe the article meets the FA standards, and all comments are welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "which also saw influence securing officer commissions": I don't know what that means.
    Per A Nation In Arms p.117, the full quote for you: "The use of influence to secure commissions was rife in the Welsh Army Corps". It is then followed by a few examples. Basically, those with the political influence were able to ensure that their sons etc. were able to become officers regardless if the were qualified or trained for the role. Recommendation for improving the wording? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    I tweaked it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • See MOS:COLLAPSE.
    I have read over the section, and the various templates that should not be used and I do not see them in the article. If you are referring to the OOBs, I was able to get the 70th Div article passed without incident. Is that what we are talking about?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) doesn't have an OOB collapsebox until the end-sections; it's not a problem there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    To confirm then, a dedicated OOB section for the three collapse-boxes?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    All I can tell you for sure is that it's a MOS problem in the main text. I don't keep up with what Milhist likes to see in endsections, but I suspect it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Amended to keep in line with the MOS.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "most adequately bombard[ment]": ?
    Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Done for a few hours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    Appreciate the comments, and have left some feedback; look forward to your replies and any other comments you have.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "machine gun fire", "machine-gun fire" (lots of both): consistency.
    I have amended this, with the sole exception that is within a quote.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've gotten rid of some of the single quote marks; it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the rest of them.
    I have removed all except, if I am not mistaken, those that are quotes within quotes. The few remaining, I have re-confirmed with the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Dank for your edits, comments, and support. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:51st_Division,_Battle_of_Pilckem_Ridge,_31_Juily_1917.jpg: if this is free in the US, we don't need a non-free tag for it. English Wikipedia only considers US copyright
    Amended per your comments, I hope this suffices?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    Still seeing a fair-use rationale that isn't needed - suggest replacing with the more generic image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    My apologies, I missed that!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Hore-Belisha_1935.jpg: why is this PD in the UK - which of the given rationales applies? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    I had assumed that as the work is of a then sitting politician, #1 would apply. Further reading of the NPG website indicates they allow usage of their works under BY-NC-ND (which i note is not allowed on the commons). Advise in regards to UK-PD would appreciated, otherwise I will move to remove the image (and replace it with a somewhat inferior one from the IWM that is covered under UK-PD). Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 1 applies where the work is by the UK govt - is that the case here? It could be a work for hire, but that would depend on who did the hiring. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    I have been able to find little else on the photo, and believe the best course of action for the moment is to remove it from the article, which I have done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. No (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr No is the sixth in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories, and the one which tempted a couple of film makers to see what they could do (and looked what happened when they tried). This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. It's had a very profitaAtble PR, where there were a lot of excellent comments, and the article is all the stronger for it. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – I was among the peer reviewers, and was very happy with the page at that point. Subsequent polishing has improved it further and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. This developing series on the 007 books is, I think, just what Wikipedia readers will be looking for: good background and context, clear plot summary, comprehensive coverage of reception and adaptations. This latest addition is well up to the high standard set earlier. Tim riley talk 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Much along the lines of Tim, an excellent article and clearly meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for you both for your comments and thoughts both here and at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Any reason for the book and film titles being "Dr. No" but the character being "Dr No"? EddieHugh (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The full stop isn't generally used after Mr, Dr, etc. I've looked at my copy of the novel again (hoping to find Fleming followed suit!), and as most of the versions drop it on the cover but he doesn't refer to Dr. or Dr No, but calls him Doctor No throughout. I'll follow suit to avoid confusion. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, SchroCat.

  • Box templates are reserved for pull quotes per template:quote box and per WP:MOS. Need to duplicate the text into the body of the article so the boxes become true pull quotes, or convert {{quote box}} templates to {{quote}} templates. Confirm all quotes are sourced.
  • More honoured in the breach than the observance, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. I think you will be happy if you convert them to blockquotes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. The use of blockquote is a deliberate choice based on the formatting of the page, and the break of the text around the box. Using the QUOTE template provides a sub-standard reader experience. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Then you'll need to add the quote box text to the body so the quote boxes become pull quotes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm happy for them not to be thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Per {{quote box}} documentation:

This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page. In most cases, this is not appropriate for use in encyclopedia articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{Quote}} template or the HTML <blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know what the guideline says, thanks. It is, after all, only a guideline and "recommends", rather than proscribes. Like many other FAs, GAs, FLs and other articles, this uses the box in a slightly different way. I have no more to say on the matter than that. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. I am not going to flog the quote box pull quote issue. However, I was percolating on images, and IMHO the article would benefit from another image or two. Additionally, the bird one is a bit dull and dark; only the caption saves it, and the caption is not succinct per MOS:CAPTIONS. Moving some of the quotes inline or converting them to blockquote using the {{quote}} template would free up some real estate for another germane image or two. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
If you have any suggestions for images that increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter I'd be happy to see them, but as the quotes help inform the reader, the bar is quite high as to what would be an improvement. – SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Extended MoS discussion --Laser brain (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These are not good candidates for pull quotes (less than 1 out of every 10,000 WP articles has a pull quote in it; it's a bombastic journalistic style rarely used in an encyclopedic context). Just use the {{Quote}} template. WP is not a blog, and doesn't cutesy-decorate block quotations, but follows the style of paper encyclopedias and other mainstream publishing in this regard. The use of pull quote templates for block quotes (or inline quotes, for the shorter ones) in these cases is especially inappropriate and annoying. All of the uses are for wry critics' responses to fairly trivial matters, and do nothing like a pull quote, which highlight a quotation as encapsulating the central message of a piece or section. The purpose of pull-quote boxes of this sort is: "If you walk away with only one thing in mind after reading this, it should be what's in this box." Instead, this article it abusing the style badly, and repeatedly, to laser-target readers' attention to what turns out to be random, bald-faced trivia. It's a bait-and-switch move. PS, regarding the obvious WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument: If any FAs are doing something similar, they should be cleaned up to stop doing so. SchroCat's treatment of MoS as something to fight and rail against, instead of a community consensus to go along with except in rare WP:IAR circumstances, is WP:SOAPBOX stuff that FAC should not be swayed by.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Stanton: First off, I removed some indentation from your comment to make it easier to read and comment on. I think the regular {{Quote}} template is only appropriate if the text says something like "In an interview, Foo said...". If a quote from a letter to Ian Fleming is added, it wouldn't make sense to have {{Quote}} since it wouldn't flow with the rest of the text. In this case, it should be either a pull quote or removed if deemed too trivial. With that said, I believe it offers a good illustration in lieu of more images in the article and should be kept. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm soap-boxing and need to be fought against? (and did you actually look at SOAPBOX? What exactly am I advertising here?!) Perhaps you could depersonalise your comments, rather than come in with all guns blazing simply to wind people up.
Firstly no, these are not "pull quotes" in the sense our MoS describes them: they are quotes formatted into boxes, rather than in-line. The quotes are relevant to the text where they are placed in much the same way as an image is (they enlighten the understanding of the reader—don't forget we here to serve them, not to make a fetish from a creaky MoS) without additional excessive text to make the same point the quote box does. As Montanabw recently put it, this is one of the many times that "The template documentation is out of date and out of sync with what they are actually used for." Our always flexible guidelines (not set in stone at all) around this don't reflect the reality, and it is they that should be made to fit with increasingly common usage (not an argument for here, obviously, but the thought of ever trying to discuss a change to the MoS with those that seem to fight all changes leaves me cold).
As to the claim that "All of the uses are for wry critics' responses to fairly trivial matters, and do nothing like a pull quote, I'm afraid that's just untrue, all of them are not. Two of these contain quotes from Ian Fleming and one contains a quote from a letter to Fleming. – SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't drag other editors into it; this is not a campaign. You (and allegedly Montanabw) have it backwards: The template documentation is not out of date. Rather, the early deployment of the templates is, and is in a slow process of being cleaned up. Years ago, there was no consensus on how best to format quotations on WP, and people just did whatever random thing they felt like. That has changed (see MOS:QUOTE). In the last few years, these templates, which were all over the place in style and purpose, have been consolidated into just a few variants, and those for pull quotes have been identified and documented as such. Moving on, no one said any of the quotes in the article are not relevant in their contexts. They are relevant and arguably should be preserved – as standard block quotations. What they are not is pull quotes. No amount of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-style special pleading by pointing at GAs/FAs that pre-date MoS's more specific instructions about quotation formatting is going to magically make MoS not apply to this article. See the #2 FA criterion: "It follows the style guidelines". The old article need quotation style cleanup; that is not going to be aided by adding more pages that need quotation style cleanup. If you want to push for Wikipedia to actually change to preferring that block quotations be put in a decorative box, feel free to open yet another RfC proposing this, at WT:MOS or WP:VPPOL. Good luck with that; the community does not want the encyclopedia articles to look like someone's personal blog, or such proposals would not have been repeatedly rejected already. PS: All WP guidelines are resistant to change, otherwise they would be useless as guidelines. You need to have an unassailable reason, not willy-nilly whim, to change one of them substantively, as their value is primarily in their stability and consistency. You can call guidelines "just guidelines" all you want, but it will not change the fact that they are not essays you can ignore at will. WP:IAR does not work the way you seem to think it does, nor does WP:PAG. And it's a moot point here because of criterion 2; if that criterion said "and complies with the following list of essays: ...", you'd need to comply with those as well to get the FA badge. You're free to propose in another RfC that FAC drop criterion #2 entirely. Unless that actually happens and it concludes with such a changed consensus, people need to stop treating FAC and similar forums as anti-guideline campaigning soapboxes. It's tendentious, and a WP:1AM problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Any chance you could pull your horns in and stop addressing everyone like we're worthless pieces of shit? (And linking to meaningless essays won't wash – they hold no water here or anywhere else). You are personalising the debate against me to a degree that is unnecessarily contentious and disruptive. Your goading will fail, I'm afraid. Now, to the point in hand.
1. I never claimed it was anything like a "campaign" (and the link you used is an odd one - as it's the second time you've linked to that page, I'm not entirely sure you understand it. Perhaps you could check what you link to before you post next time). The reason I linked to Montana is that I don't like quoting people behind their back. (As such your accusation of a "campaign" fails AGF and is a shallowly disguised personal attack, but I am used to such things).
2. I am glad you have backtracked on your false claim on the content of these boxes (it's never good to make such mendacious statements when it's so obviously wrong).
2.1. I see that despite having your "error" pointed out to you above, you have again–deliberately–reiterated what I can only call a lie in describing the quote in the boxes as "trivial commentary". If you are unable to comment on this matter honestly (and without the unconstructive and disruptive wall of text) I suggest you move on to something more constructive.
3. Yes, as I indicated before, I have no wish to start an RfC on quote boxes for the reasons I outlined earlier: trying to discuss any changes on matters of style with the self-appointed 'guardians of the MoS' is something that leaves almost all editors too tired to even bother starting. Me included.
4. Local consensus can overrule the inherently flexible MoS, regardless of the inflexibility of approach of some who try and enforce the guidelines (not set-in-stone policies, but guidelines). It has done so on dozens of articles of varying standards. This isn't OSE, but LOCALCONSENSUS.
I have little desire to continue discussing this with you, particularly given your aggressive approach and PAs so far. Our opinions go in different directions on is point, and so far the LOCALCONSENSUS on this article is against you. – SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Laser brain (as the closing admin on this FAC), As Smccandlish has started leaving inappropriate Arbcom threats on my talk page (having possibly followed me to a discussion on the Cary Grant article), I will not be taking part in any further discussion with him. – SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As an additional note, I came across The Grapes of Wrath article that uses both types of quotes well. It illustrates why this article is the way it is. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
See above; the fact that some other articles are misusing pull quote templates for things that are not pull quotes is not a good reason to misuse more pull quote templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • At least four citation are URLs missing accessdates. There may be more.
  • I cannot see to which ones you refer: could you say which FNs? - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. These citation titles at minimum:
The James Bond Phenomenon: a Critical Reader
The Politics of James Bond: from Fleming's Novel to the Big Screen
Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories
Ian Fleming.com
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for clarifying Checkingfax. The first three are books (linked to Google Books, but still books). As they have the unique identification there already (through ISBNs), no access date is needed. For Ian Fleming.com, I presume you mean footnote 3, which is the only use to support information: th access date is there already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. The citations include URLs that are subject to WP:Linkrot so they do need accessdates. For printed books – no – but for citations with URLs – yes they are needed.
Not as far as I am aware (because if the Google link rots, the information is still supported by the physical book, for which we have the full publication details). Nikkimaria, as an experienced source reviewer, what's you're take on access dates for Google books? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Accessdate refers to when you were able to access the web page. If a citation has a URL, an accessdate is germane to it to prevent linkrot. This is one area where I see eye-to-eye with Flyer22 Reborn. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
According to the documentation at Template:Cite book, "access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book", so I'll leave it out on that basis, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. No harm to include them just in case the link rots out. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
If the link rots out then we still have the full publishing details in place. Those sources will not have changed from the books which are not on GoogleBooks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Access dates are useful for websites that change over time; in this case, the source being cited will not change whether it was cited 10 years ago or yesterday. URL is a key part of a web citation, but for a book citation even if the link does rot the citation remains complete. Per the documentation, access date is not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • <ref name="Obs: Richardson> as you can see is missing the closing quote mark. This occurs in at least 2 places with that ref. Check for more.
  • That ref is used only once that I can see, not twice. Can you point me to the second one? (I've fixed the first). - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. It is used once to precede the full citation then it is used again at least once as a standalone ref name that is self-closing with a forward slash in it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I'd covered this in the first edit. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Some pedantic editors like to see WP:LDR style references listed alphabetically by leading initial
  • Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by this - I'm utterly unsure. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Instead of this:
<ref name="Cook (2004)">
{{cite news|last=Cook|first=William|title=Novel Man|newspaper=New Statesman|date=28 June 2004|page=40}}</ref>

<ref name="ABR: JB Jamaican">
{{cite news|last=Thomson|first=Ian|title=James Bond the Jamaican|newspaper=Arts & Book Review|date=6 June 2008|p=21}}</ref>

<ref name="Bergonzi (1958)">
{{cite journal|last=Bergonzi|first=Bernard|title=The Case of Mr Fleming|journal=Twentieth Century|date=March 1958|authorlink=Bernard Bergonzi|page=221}}</ref>
they prefer to see them in alphabetical order by the leading letter like this:
<ref name="ABR: JB Jamaican">
{{cite news|last=Thomson|first=Ian|title=James Bond the Jamaican|newspaper=Arts & Book Review|date=6 June 2008|p=21}}</ref>

<ref name="Bergonzi (1958)">
{{cite journal|last=Bergonzi|first=Bernard|title=The Case of Mr Fleming|journal=Twentieth Century|date=March 1958|authorlink=Bernard Bergonzi|page=221}}</ref>

<ref name="Cook (2004)">
{{cite news|last=Cook|first=William|title=Novel Man|newspaper=New Statesman|date=28 June 2004|page=40}}</ref>
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. That's background coding that has no impact on man nor beast (or even a computer!), so I'll leave it as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. It helps future editors perform their edits. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A portal for Books could be added but that might be redundant. Your call.
  • I have no idea about the portals and from what I know about them, I'm generally underwhelmed, so I'll leave it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A portal for film could be added since the article is in the film category
  • As above, but with the extra reasoning that this article is about the book, so the film detail is almost tangential, and the portal even more so. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the publishers' name needed in the infobox image caption? You tell me. I do not know.
  • Probably not, given it's shown a few lines below: now removed - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref #41 is throwing a red error because there is an accessdate but no URL in the citation. Either: 1) remove the date portion after the accessdate parameter or 2) add a URL to the citation. You can see it at this permalink, but when you make the edit to fix it, do not edit from that old page; be sure to edit from the most recent page. The error looks like this: |access-date= requires |url=
  • {{DEFAULTSORT:Dr. No (Novel)}} can be deleted since the sort key matches the article title to a T
  • Hi, SchroCat. In infoboxes, well most anyway, image size does not need to be called out unless you are trying to scale the image up and the image is under 220 pixels. If you do need to scale up you can omit the px portion of the scaling. So where this is:
| image_size = 200px
delete the 220px portion so it looks like this:
| image_size =
The image will stretch to fit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The 200px in there shrinks the image a tad: without that shrinkage it domainates the top on smaller screens, to my eye at least. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Hmmm. I have not experienced that in this infobox. MOS:ACCESSIBILITY and MOS:IMAGES and a few other places guide us not to hard size images unless forced to. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, they are guidelines, not hard-proscribed rules. The image is still within all reasonable ACCESS guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Yeah. MoS is merely a guideline to promote a consistent order of things and equal access. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding the website parameter:
| website = to the info box and populating it with this metadata: {{official website}} then migrating the book's official URL to Wikidata. At that point the infobox will pull the URL from Wikidata.
  • In External links, remove the official website cruft and replace it with this:
* {{official website}} of [[Ian Fleming Publications]]
and it will fetch the URL from Wikidata.
  • No, I think not on balance. The IB contains enough information about the book without bloating it out further. If the festering turd of Wikidata decides to drop unsourced, unreferenced and unsupported rubbish into the IB at a later date, it'll be reverted as the vandalism it is. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Ouch. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Featured Article toolbox check[edit]
  • Alt text: Pass, but suggest double check by Graham87 and by Natalie.Desautels
  • Citation bot: Pass
  • Disambig links: Pass
  • Edit count: ?
  • External links: Pass
  • Peer review: Done
  • Redirects: ?
  • Reflinks: Pass
  • Copyright vio: ?

That is all for now. I will check back later in the FA review process for further comments and to !vote. Ping me back any time. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Checkingfax. A couple of questions to be answered in there, where you've lost me entirely. If you could clarify what you mean, I'll try and work it out. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. Bedtime for Bonzo here. G'Nite. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support -- Much improved since the PR, and I'm more than happy to support this excellent article to FA. CassiantoTalk 22:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Cass, for your thoughts and comments - glad you enjoyed it! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. Just a few comments, but in general the article is very good:

  • "Dr. No was the first of Fleming's novels to face wide negative criticism in Britain": I would say "widespread" rather than "wide" here, personally.
  • "More recently BBC Radio produced a version": I would specify "BBC Radio 4".
  • The caption on the picture of the Roseate Spoonbills is confusing if you read it before the section on Plot in which it appears. Maybe make it clear what island you are referring to?
  • "the location became the background for Crab Key": does this mean "the location inspired Crab Key"? I assume so, but am not sure. If so, why do you not just say that?

As I say though, these are minor nitpicks and matters of taste, and they do not affect my support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. These are all steps forward I think, and have been adopted into the article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • WorldCat shouldn't be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria, all now altered. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Support - An enjoyable and informative article. I haven't read the book since the 1960s, but now I'm tempted to read it again. I have a few nitpicks, which I'm happy for you to ignore if you think they would not improve the article.

  • "Dr. No was serialised in The Daily Express, first in an abridged, multi-part form and later as a comic strip." Doesn't "serialised" and "multi-part" mean the same thing?
  • "The island has a colony of roseate spoonbills at one end while local rumour is that there is a vicious dragon living there." there...there
  • other devices from Rohmer's novels included Doctor No's secret lair and the use of the mad scientist trope. Would linking "trope" be useful?

Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Graham, Many thanks for your thoughts. All are good, and have been adopted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Excellent work. Just to show I've read the article, here are my nitpicks:

  • I would move up the mention of Jamaica's colonial status into the first paragraph.
  • "Venus elegans" are species names not usually italicised?
  • "of inaccessible mangrove swamp and salt flats" evidently not inaccessible.
  • "the books about whom" maybe "who featured in books"
  • "The novelist Raymond Benson—who later wrote a series of Bond novels" something more novel, perhaps?
  • "about the meaning of power with a number of villains in the series. His conversation with Doctor No reveals that the latter believes it can only be secured through the privacy required to maintain the sovereignty of his island; he quotes Carl von Clausewitz's first principle in support of his argument" Does how you secure power go to its meaning? And you may want to illuminate us as to von Clausewitz's principle.
  • "Benson sees no discrimination in the relationship between the two men[29] " this is somewhat at odds with the discussion of the relationship between Bond and Quarrel earlier.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt, all dealt with and all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Some late comments – not too late, I trust. I've also done bits of light ce which you may wish to check out.

  • In the lead: "did not come to fruition" is unnecessarily verbose – you could just say " failed" or "foundered". The identical phrase appears in the "background" section.
Background
  • "In June 1956 the author Ian Fleming became involved in a project with the producer Henry Morgenthau III to collaborate on a planned television series..." → "In June 1956 the author Ian Fleming began a collaboration with the producer Henry Morgenthau III on a planned television series..."
  • "By January 1957 he had published four novels in successive years..." I'd be inclined to say "Bond novels"
  • The paragraph beginning "The writer Simon Wilder..." seems oddly placed in "Background", since it discusses the finished work. Probably better sited in the "reception" area.
  • "echoed in the cover" → "echoed on the cover"?
Plot inspirations
  • I think the two "withs" in the first line should each read "of"
  • Instead of the gnomic "the location inspired Crab Key", could we not have a line which indicates what it was about the location that identified it in Fleming's mind with Dr No's lair?
  • Unfortunately not in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is Patricia Wilder's nickname, rather than her name, that Fleming used for the book's heroine.
Characters
  • Opening sentence: the construction "For the first time in the Bond novels, there is friction between Bond and M in Dr. No" freads oddly. I prefer: "In Dr. No, for the first time in the Bond novels, there is friction between Bond and M..."
  • "Rider is one of three women..." I'd probably use her fuller name here
  • "ideal concept" – perhaps "idealised concept"?
Style
  • "Amis" needs to be identified.
Publication history
  • " In 1964 the novel was serialised in France-Soir for the French market, which led to increased sales of Bond works in that country, with 480,000 French-language copies of the six Bond novels being sold that year." I'd split this.
  • While I have no particular criticism of the second paragraph, again I feel it is misplaced, as it is not concermed with "publication history". As to its best place, I'm not quite sure, since it discusses Fleming's work generally rather than concentrating on Dr No. Perhaps put it at the end of the "reviews" section, after the specific book criticisms?
  • I have mulled over this a lot previously. It not rightr to go into the review section, as it's not about the reviews for this work, but it did have an impact on the sales etc. Would it be better in the "Background" section, or where it is? - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Reviews
  • "For the first time in the series..." → "For the first time in the Bond series..."
  • "The unnamed critic in The Manchester Guardian referred to Johnson's "sex, snobbery and sadism" complaint, and conceded that while "the casualties take place on a somewhat narrower front than usual, they are heavy". I get a sense of non sequitur here; heavy casualties do not obviously equate to sex, snobbery and sadism.
  • "In April 1958, Fleming wrote to the paper..." Clarify if this is still the MG
  • "Fleming partly accepted the criticism from the paper..." last three words unnecessary
  • "Chandler...praised the first chapter as "masterly" in Fleming's depiction of colonial Kingston." Not actually grammatical, should be "praised as "masterly" Fleming's depiction of colonial Kingston in the first chapter."
  • "Chandler was also praising of..." – awkward. Perhaps just "Chandler admired..."
  • "the Fleming biographer" → "Fleming's biographer"
  • "described it in terms of" → "described it as"
Adaptations
  • Suggest delete "also" in the first line
  • "It was the first Bond novel in the Eon Productions series..." Surely you mean the first Bond film?

Nothing of great significance here, and I look forward to supporting when these are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Brian, thanks for taking the time to look over this. I've followed your suggestions on all but two points, and given the reasons above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Do as you think best with the remaining issues. I am happy to support as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Brian. Having slept on it again—and taking into account that Moisejp also raised the point in the PR—I have moved it from where it was and into the Background section. It's one of those events that doesn't fit perfectly in any of the individual book articles, or any of the sections of the articles, but it's a key point, particularly given the Paul Johnson critique later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Comment -- recusing from coord duties, and piling on as an unashamed fan of the books, I made a few small changes and have just one suggestion:

  • "In From Russia, with Love Fleming experimented with an unusual narrative structure..." -- might leave the uninitiated hanging, do you think it's worth briefly (just a few words if possible) stating what was unusual?
  • Tweaked, see how you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Better - thanks for that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Structure, level of detail, tone and the prose overall seem fine to me so about ready to support but see below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review -- licensing for both looks appropriate but neither of the source links worked for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks Ian, both for the text and image review. I've swapped the spoonbill image for something that works, and replaced the link on the book cover. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No prob, tks Gav. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- Checkingfax mentioned this earlier, but I noticed the only image in the article besides the cover is of a Roseate spoonbill bird, which is fairly trivial. It would seem odd for a FA to only have that much illustration. If you can find some images that can pass image review to help illustrate some of the major concepts, that would be ideal. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said to Checkingfax, if you have any suggestions for images that increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter I'd be happy to see them. Just for the sake of comparison, the previous book in the series (also an FA) has the same number of images. – SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that link. I feel like the Adaptations section could use an image from the comic strip and/or film articles, although the FRWL article does not have any images in this section either. For the sake of consistency, it could be omitted, although I still feel it to be a bit sparse in the image realm. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
There are no copyright free images for either the strip or film, and we'd be hard-pushed to justify the non-free criteria, – SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I presume one could use the same rationale as used in the strip and film articles, but in any case, I think the quotes are an adequate substitute for the purposes of a novel article as I mention in the above discussion regarding "pull quotes". Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is about the novel, and a fair use rationale would not be acceptable to illustrate the secondary issue of adaptations. I suppose we could slot the old Goldeneye image into the Writing section – it appears in other Bond novel articles. But I don't see a great necessity. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Most of my comments were addressed during the peer review. Here are a few more:

  • I noticed you removed mention of Chris Blackwell. I thought it was an interesting fact. But if someone else asked you to remove it, no worries.
  • Yes, it was removed in the advice of another editor. – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I did a mini-edit just now about the "Carl von Clausewitz's first principle" part, but I'm still not convinced it is clear. Perhaps consider just removing the sentence, if it doesn't clearly let the reader understand how Dr. No's beliefs were related to this principle?
  • Again, it was advised by another editor. I think the inclusion is justified, so it's probably my text that needs work (I added a couple of words to help, but I acknowledge I may need to do a little more). – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think your edit today makes it clearer. Thanks.
  • "Many of the female characters in the Bond series have a physical flaw, and Rider has a broken nose—the result of the rape she suffered." The footnote only gives one other example, which I found possibly not convincing for "many".
  • Yep, quite right. I've tweaked the main text and footnote a little: look any better? – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's definitely better.
  • I think Wehwait said something about this too, but the the rosy depiction of Bond's and Quarrel's relationship at the end of the Themes section doesn't acknowledge that a more troubling aspect (about superiority and inequality) has previously been mentioned (in Characters). I'm not totally sure what to suggest here. Maybe just a small mention in Themes about "Notwithstanding other writers' depiction of the inequality in the relationship, Linder describes ... ; Benson sees ... " Moisejp (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ive added the Lindner name in there. There is a 'natural superiority' aspect in Fleming's writing, but that's common in much British writing of the time, and a reflection of society at the time, so there may be a cultural nuance to this for some readers. – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I read this comment before I read your edit, and I thought, "Just that surely won't help much." But when I read your edit I was surprised that the addition seemed to improve the overall flow. Maybe having the extra name in there serves as a subconscious reminder that these are all different people's opinions, so the difference from the Characters section seems less jarring. In any case, it worked for me.
  • I should say, thanks very much for your in depth comments, thoughts and edits at PR: they were very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You're very welcome, and I am happy to support this article. Moisejp (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna[edit]

Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 04:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about India's highest civilian award. Instituted in 1954, the award is bestowed upon 45 recipients and has been surrounded by several controversies. The article is copyedited by a GoCE member (@Blackmane:) and has undergone a peer review. Looking forward to see some constructive comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Fowler&fowler This is a premature submission. I'm surprised that it was granted Good Article status. There is no point in wasting the time of conscientious editors by asking them to read an article large parts of which need to be rewritten, reduced, and made free both of political points of view and of repetition. The nominator should work with some editors from the league of copy-editors as well as from WP:India, to rewrite, and to resubmit later. It will be a good thing if the reviewer who granted it Good Article status will explain why he or she did so. Please do not ask me to explain more. If the WAC officials decide my comments are not actionable, so be it, but this really is nowhere near FA class. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Some comments by Fowler&fowler:
    • The claim in the lead, which is repeated in the controversy section, that India's first prime minister nominated himself for this award is sourced to some recent sources, which are not reliable, at least not for an FA class article. More reliable, contemporary, sources described it as something different. Here is one: Singhvi, Laxmi Mall; Sarkar, Bidyut Kumar (1956), India: Government and Politics, Human Relations Area Files, South Asia Project, University of California, p. 366  Quote: "... many politically-conscious Indians are convinced that future historians will not miss the tangible significance of Mr. Nehru's role in contemporary history. This confidence was expressed when India's President Rajendra Prasad, in July 1955, took the "unconstitutional" (i.e., without the Prime Minister's recommendation) step of conferring on Nehru the title of Bharat Ratna (Jewel of India), the highest award the Indian Republic can offer. (p 366)" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The speech of Indian president Rajendra Prasad delivered on the occasion of Nehru receiving the Bharat Ratna confirms that it was he (Prasad) who nominated Nehru without the latter's knowledge. See: Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Correspondence and Select Documents: Volume Seventeen. Presidency Period January 1954 to December 1955, Allied Publishers, 1984, pp. 455–456, ISBN 978-81-7023-002-1  Quote: "I have felt that I can do no better than conferring on him the award of Bharat Ratna which is the highest award of honour that we have. In doing so, for once, I may be said to be acting unconstitutionally, as I am taking this step on my own initiative and without any recommendation or advice from my Prime Minister; but I know that my action will be endorsed most enthusiastically not only by my Cabinet and other Ministers but by the country as a whole."
Since this will not available to everyone, I will copy the entire speech on Talk:Bharat Ratna. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: With your post comment edits on the article, it looks like you have objection with the controversies related to Gandhis as you have simply deleted the particulars. The similar concern was brought to the article's talk page by 5-edits user a month ago. When asked for the online source for the claim, the user has not yet come back with the details. Interestingly, you have raised the same concern but provided the source, which is good in a way. This particular source about Prasad's speech should be considered as a primary one and should be backed by one or more secondary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. The content that was deleted by you was published in various contemporary reliable sources/newspapers like The Hindu, Telegraph, Outlook India etc. and thus cannot be and shall not be deleted outrightly. Rather, post your source, we may need to rephrase the content to put forward both the sides.
About Indira Gandhi awarding herself, none of your sources provide any support to your claim. So that definitely should be restored back. Unless you have source to support it. There are various books and sources available which labels her action as "patting-her-own-back". - Vivvt (Talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Vivvt: Who are the Gandhis, in the plural, in this instance? It is Mr Jawaharlal Nehru and Mrs Indira Gandhi. I picked them because they were right there in the lead. I then looked for evidence in the Criticism section, whose first paragraph I removed because it was entirely sourced to op-ed pieces or memoirs in newspapers written by unknown people (i.e. people with no scholarly antecedent in the historiography of Mr Nehru, Mrs Gandhi, or the Bharat Ratna). Wikipedia is fairly clear that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." In other words, this is not a significant viewpoint. Also, the claim about the Right to Information query (RTI) is mentioned in no op-ed piece you have cited. The information released in the RTI queries, in any case, as @Sitush: has observed, "would most likely be tailored very specifically to the questions asked, which could significantly skew results. (See here.)" Predictably, upon an on-line search I could find evidence of only one RTI, written up, replete with photograph, in a guest story by a reader with one name, in a dubiously partisan web newspaper, which seemed to be nothing but a case in point (of Sitush's observation).
How did you manage to keep that claim in the article when all you had were Indian newspapers opinions making that claim, but providing no evidence from a primary source for it? In other words, other than saying that Mr Nehru awarded himself the BR, where is the evidence of any primary source (a handwritten or typewritten note from the PM to the president, a memo, a telegram, a record of a phone call) in these newspaper stories? You will need to produce a scholarly secondary source, such as I have produced above, from the University of California, Berkeley, publication. I included the Rajendra Prasad speech in full because the Berkeley publication refers to it. I have now also added, on the article's talk age, a Times of India front-page story from, July 16, 1955, the day following the award, and a shorter New York Times mention, both confirming that Mr Nehru had no previous knowledge of the award. As for the Indira Gandhi claim, you will still need to produce a scholarly source for that as well in a Featured Article. One of your sources, The Hindu opinion piece, in fact, suggests the opposite: "it is generally believed that it was the then President, V. V. Giri, who had suo motu decided to award a Bharat Ratna to Indira Gandhi after the Bangladesh war." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, which is associated with the children's television series of the same name. The brand has produced numerous television series, music albums, worldwide tours and merchandise. Hi-5 were one of Australia's highest paid entertainment entities, placing in the Business Review Weekly's annual list several times, earning an estimated A$18million in 2009. The membership has changed several times. SatDis (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... John C. Calhoun. John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesmen who held a number of high political offices in the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Checkingfax

  • Hi, Display name 99. I made a deep scrubbing starting here. I would suggest adding alt text to all images that could use it. I will be happy to !vote on this when the FA review process is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Dead links via Checklinks: None
  • Bare URLs via Reflinks: None
  • Disambig links: None
  • Redirects: In order
  • Citation bot: No issues
Checkingfax, I do not have a good understanding of what alternative text is, nor do I know which images in the article could use it. Would you explain this more please? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99. I would suggest reading the alt text link I provided above and also consulting with Natalie.Desautels and Graham87. Maybe they will make some other comments while they are here 718smiley.svg Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99. I have taken the liberty to add the first three 'alt text' captions. You will of course be able to see the 'alt text' code structure in Source view. Visually impaired persons often use a screen reader, and I like to provide information about a photo they cannot see. Since the reader reads all text, I wouldn't state what is already there. For example, since the second image is of Calhoun's wife Floride, there is no need to repeat this; so I added '|alt=oval image of young woman seated, with pinkish white frilled head bonnet and dress top, black narrow waist dress and straight dark hair parted in the middle]]. Normally I would not say 'image' or 'photo' of since, well, what else could it be; but I did want to emphasize that it is an oval image. My own taste is to provide 'alt text' which is a bit longer than recommended, and my implementation has been successful. It's a good idea to check with Graham87 for a conclusive opinion. I'm sorry my time is a bit taken right now, but if you need further help, just write. ...hope this helps. You can see all alt text at a glance here. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99 I did a few more 'alt text' captions. Please feel entirely free to revert or correct in any way you see fit. I'll be very happy to answer questions, if you wish. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Checkingfax and Display name 99: Hello Graham87 I've completed the 'alt text' for all the images in this article. I am hoping you will be able to review, as time permits. Your help and opinion is always much appreciated. Kindest regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Natalie.Desautels:Thanks, they sound good. I've added a metric conversion to one o them. Graham87 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Natalie.Desautels and Graham87, thank you for your help. I am pleased to say that I now have a better idea of this for the future. Display name 99 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, Display name 99. As this is a new paragraph, I feel you need a year added to this: In July a group of Yale students requested in a petition that Yale rename the Calhoun College, one of the University's twelve residential colleges. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. A different editor wrote that, and I should have caught it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm doing some detailed comments, but to start you, I'm somewhat concerned about the term "minority rights" in the lede. Wouldn't that in present-day usage be assumed to be referring to racial or ethnic minorities?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I understand your concern and it has been voiced before. The fact is that Calhoun was very concerned about the idea that, as the North continued to expand in population, and if it was able to get control of the territories and outlaw slavery there, it would overwhelm and oppress the smaller and weaker Southern states. In defense of the South, Calhoun defended such practices as nullification and advocated for the expanse of slavery in order to "protect minority rights from majority rule." That becomes clear if one reads the article's body.
I understand that "minority rights" sounds confusing to anyone trying to understand it in 21st century context. Obviously Calhoun was not concerned about protecting blacks, immigrants, etc. After a question on the talk page here, I agreed to add "in politics" to the end of the sentence. If you can think of a still better way to clarify it, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's an oldie, but what about "state's rights"? That would probably be up there with "slavery" if you asked people (who knew of him) for quick summaries of Calhoun. Or "sectional rights for the South"? Or possibly just expand the sentence to explain as you just did, that the minority rights spoken of are that of the (white) South. Possibly "minority rights for the South to maintain its way of life without outside interference" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Lede
  • "His positions heavily influenced the South's secession from the Union in 1860–61." Since he was dead at the time, maybe "opinions" or "teachings"?
  • " to serve as " "as" is probably enough. I would even delete "the seventh", which seems only put in there to hang a link you don't really need because you can get there from the infobox.
  • "Calhoun had a difficult relationship with Jackson primarily because of the Nullification Crisis and the Petticoat Affair, in which Calhoun's wife humiliated Jackson's allies. " I would cast this in terms of their political differences, as that's really what caused the crisis and aggravated the affair.
  • I quote two statements: "He began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs. By the late 1820s, his views reversed and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs"

and "In contrast with his previous nationalism, Calhoun vigorously supported South Carolina's right to nullify Federal tariff legislation which he believed unfairly favored the North, putting him into conflict with unionists such as Jackson."


As far as I can see, you're using the words "nationalist", "unionist" and "proponent of a strong national government" to mean the same thing. At least, that's what I'm getting when I parse this. I also note that there is considerable repetition in the lede as exemplified here, at least in my view, and the second sentence makes the reader follow a bit like a tennis match, first starting on the strong government side, then off to the other, then back again. I try to avoid that personally. But this is a long article, I think the lede can be shortened somewhat as I suggest.

Got to go, more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt. I've made some changes based on your recommendations-please see. "Nationalist" and "proponent of a strong national government" basically mean the same thing. However, the word "unionist" was meant to describe anyone opposed to nullification and secession. Andrew Jackson was not really a supporter of a strong national government, and generally favored states' rights. However, he made it clear that he was staunchly opposed to nullification. That is what I meant by calling him a "unionist". Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done up to Secretary of War. Very well written. A few points.
  • Is the recitation of the birth dates and deaths of Calhoun siblings really necessary?:
Done. I suppose not. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we need the discussion of the Petticoat Affair in the marriage section, in view of the fact that it is fully set forth later? I'd rather see something about her intelligence, say, or how she got her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents. Deal with the petticoats later.
I'm not aware of any accounts regarding her intelligence. I'm not sure what you mean about getting "her husband to within a heartbeat of two different presidents." I think that would we have in the section now about the Petticoat Affair, which is already less than one sentence, is appropriate, considering how notable it was in Mrs. Calhoun's life. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent in the capitalization of "Petticoat Affair"
Done. I have capitalized it one place where it was not. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The final sentence of the marriage section appears out of place.
Do you have a better place to put it? I'm not sure I see one. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The absence of the national Bank had also distressed the Treasury, so Calhoun called for a new national bank. " not only is there a repetition, but the reader has no reason to pick up on any significance except the Treasury might be upset. Why a national bank was thought to be a good idea might be a useful interpolation (why people thought it was a bad idea can come with Jackson's actions)
It was part of the system promoted by Calhoun and others of increasing consolidation and reformation. I made some edits to this section to help clarify this point. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is the rhetoric section here?
I didn't make that section, but it basically summarizes Calhoun's speaking styles while he was a member of the House. Perhaps it wasn't placed later in the article because it could create a confusing jumble of contradictory quotes, some nationalist and others sectionalist. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there anything useful to be said about his re-elections in 1814 and 1816?
I'm not seeing much about it, so maybe not. I he was most likely relatively popular in South Carolina at that time, and so I imagine that he did not have much trouble from the state legislature in gaining reelection. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "He promoted a plan, adopted by Monroe in 1825, to preserve the sovereignty of Eastern Indians by relocating them to western reservations they could control without interference from state governments." In other words, a trail of tears. I'm not sure that this phrasing adequately fits present-day views of such things.
The statement makes sense to me. I think that one reading it carefully will get the idea. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "but Congress either failed to respond to his reforms or responded with hostility. Calhoun's frustration with congressional inaction, political rivalries, and ideological differences spurred him to create the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1824." it might be useful to note that he acted without Congress's say so.
I personally don't see a reason, and think it's implied anyhow.
People wouldn't necessarily think a bureau was something just authorized by the secretary.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help Wehwalt. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "where John Quincy Adams was declared the winner over Crawford, Clay, and Jackson, who had previously defeated Adams in both popular vote and electoral vote. " Well. Not defeated obviously. "Led"? And he was only declared the winner over Crawford and Jackson as Clay had already been eliminated because the 12th Amendment says the House shall choose from among the top three electoral vote getters and Clay wasn't.
Done. Jackson did do better than him in both categories, but he did not attain the necessary majority-thus the election was decided in the House. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Jackson selected Calhoun as his running mate," Again, this point. Possibly something along the lines that Jackson let it be known that electors pledged to support him should also vote for Calhoun. Calhoun had his own power base,the South Carolina legislature was going to choose electors who were going to support Calhoun no matter what Jackson said.
Calhoun's biography on Senate.gov reads:
"The old hero welcomed Calhoun's support, assuring him that they would "march hand in hand in their [the people's] cause," cementing one of the most ill-starred partnerships in the history of the vice-presidency."
This shows that Jackson was willing to accept Calhoun's support, and in exchange effectively named him as his choice for vice president. Our article makes it clear that the two were never close allies in the same way that Jackson and Van Buren were. But they were, for this time, partners. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Jefferson explicitly endorsed nullification.[46] Calhoun differed from Jefferson and Madison in explicitly" overly explicit
Done.
  • In the Nullification section, I would separate the theory by putting the events surrounding the famous toasts in a separate paragraphs.
  • You are inconsistent in usage "U.S." or "US"
Done, I think. I replaced one "US" with "U.S." I have noticed no others. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Did Calhoun actually do anything during his first term as vice president?
Under "Nullification", his opposition to the Tariff of 1828, enacted during his first term, is mentioned. I see how this can be confusing, because the sub-sections under "Vice Presidency" are organized according to issue or event, and not by term. The biography that I linked above discusses some things from his first term, but I personally don't find many of them particularly relevant. Calhoun's second term was more eventful. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Did Calhoun attempt to gain a third term as VP at any point?
I don't think he ever made a serious attempt to do so. I read once that Jackson made it known as early as December of 1829 that he didn't want Calhoun on the 1832 ticket. Their relationship only got worse after that. He was more effective on the Senate floor, which was why he eventually resigned. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't Calhoun's tie-breaking vote on Van Buren's nomination as minister to Britain worthy of mention?
Done. I added it into the Petticoat Affair section. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It may be worthwhile to mention directly the battle over the reauthorization of the Second Bank of the United States. You keep kind of dancing around it.
That isn't my intention. I just covered a web search, typing in thing such as "Bank War Calhoun", but the sources don't really seem to mention Calhoun in connection with the Bank War. My guess is that Calhoun would have opposed its rechartering, because he would have seen it as a threat to states' rights, and because he later allied with Van Buren over many of the same issues that led the Democrats to oppose the bank. It's unfortunate then, that the sources that I am examining only seem to mention Calhoun's vice presidency in connecting with nullification and the Eaton Affair, and in the Bank War focus almost exclusively on Clay and Jackson. Rjensen, is there any way you could help here? Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
DN99 is right. He was a jeffersonian agrarian who distrusted capitalism & banks. he opposed renewal of the Bank in 1837, but did not play a central role. [see Coit 328-31] Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Did Huger resign to clear a place for Calhoun?
I think so. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "through its Northern majority, passed the bill several times" Since the Wilmot Proviso was not always a bill, but sometimes a rider or amendment, I'd say "the proposal" rather than "bill" and some other substitute for the other use of "bill"
Done.
One more tranche to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I have responded above Wehwalt. I thank you again for all you have done to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
No trouble. Your responses are fine, and Rjensen's. Thank you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Resuming
  • "staunch slaveholder" how is this unusual?
  • "" the expansion of slavery into the backcountry" I would cut "into the backcountry which is a bit uncertain if we're talking about SC or USA. The expansion of slavery is the nub of it.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The Alexander portrait of Calhoun in the Slavery section is surely the lead image recut.
These paintings are not the same. The most noticeable difference is the placement of the hands. Check that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and postponed the declension" I would find a synonym for declension more likely to be known.
Let's teach the reader some vocabulary. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Phillips explains how:" This has more the feel of news reporting than an encyclopedia. Maybe "According to Phillips:"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the War with Mexico" proper noun for war?
Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "bring in Mexicans, deficient in moral and intellectual terms." I might put "whom he deemed" after the comma.
Done. I added "whom he considered". Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "which led immediately" not immediately, a month and a half.
Done. I removed that word. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "They formed the new Confederate States, which, in accord with Calhoun's theory, did not have any political parties." Does the source draw the conclusion, that because of Calhoun's theories, the CSA lacked parties (it did not lack for factions)? There was no prohibition on parties in the CSA constitution that I'm aware of.
There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States. Southern leaders, like Calhoun, saw them as a source of corruption. Factions did emerge, but no true parties like the ones founded during the Second Party System, which nominating conventions, etc., were ever formed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Historian Richard Hofstadter (1948, 2011)" possibly leave it with the 1948 as he was most certainly not writing in 2011!
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "has garnered a super-regional application in American political thought." I'm not sure what this means. I would have thought concurrent majorities more common in nations with multiple large ethnic groups, at least in theory.
Done. I replace it with "some acceptance". Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "abstract treatise of Calhoun's definitive and comprehensive ideas " abstract and definitive seem to clash some.
Done. I replaced "abstract treatise" with "essay", which is much more simple and straightforward. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "he worked on it intermittently for six years until its 1849 completion" I would say after "years" "until he completed it in 1849." It is because you seem to be suddenly shifting from active to passive.
I think the timeline is important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The Disquisition section seems awfully long, especially the blockquote. Maybe some of this is best placed in the article on the book.
I tried shortening it a bit. The blockquote, though, seems important enough to remain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Calhoun doctrine said Congress could never outlaw slavery in the territories" nor could the local voters.
Done. I added this detail in. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It may not be obvious that the image to the right in the legacy section is a postage stamp, and I might make that clearer.
Done. I added "postage stamp" to the caption. Display name 99 (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Calhoun is often remembered for his defense of minority rights by use of the "concurrent majority"" Why the quotes? I think by this point, we know what the concurrent majority is.
  • I am not convinced by the legacy section. It seems more a recitation of various things named for Calhoun. What influence has he had on political thought, for example.
I know that it's a bit dry, but "Legacy" sections are often used for reciting these things. Outside of the information on the things that Calhoun is named for, there are three sentences about how Calhoun is remembered, and the influence of his ideas, as well as information on more modern controversies surrounding him. Adding more would seem redundant, as it is already noted in the "Political philosophy" section. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, please see my comments above. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've read them and there's nothing I have an issue with. I do consider the legacy section a major impediment. The community colleges and Alabama lakes don't do it. What I would like to see is a short essay on Calhoun and his place in history, or tracing how he has been viewed historically over time. This is standard for FA articles on historical figures and I urge you to examine them. In my view, any historical figure of more than minimal importance needs to have a section that in an organized and coherent fashion puts his life in perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll see what can be done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I made some changes to the section. Not much text was added, but I think it helps. You will find it on the latter half of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The second half of it is more along the lines that I want, but I think there needs to be more of it. Possibly the tributes like the lake and so forth could be split of into its own section, as is often done in such articles. I would settle for a paragraph or two tracing how Calhoun has been viewed over time. I just don't feel that there is as much substance there as I would like. If a student comes to the section trying to figure out how Calhoun has affected history, he's not coming away with much, I think. I'd be grateful for Rjensen's view on the section in question. This is really my main remaining point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I've never seen anyone use this style of ref= in the templates. It works, but how do I know what has been referenced and what hasn't? This means a lot of work for me; tomorrow I'll have to check manually. It would be much better IMO to use ref=harv in every case, so Ucucha's script could check....
I looked at the harvard template and it looks like what's in place. Could you put one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow and fix? Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Lingzhi. If you open the page then Preview it, the system will throw any errors at the top of the page in red so you can address them. CS1 errors will already display in light green in the references section if you have the show hidden errors JavaScript installed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There are two Ford sources, both 1988. Normally I would say they should be 1988a and 1988b, but in this case I strongly suspect only one of the two is actually being used (probably "Republican Ideology in a Slave Society"). If that's the case,"Origins of Southern Radicalism" should be deleted....More later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Your suspicion was correct. I deleted "Origins of Southern Radicalism". Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got a Krannawitter 2004 and a Krannawitter 2008 but the refs just say "Kranawitter"..ok so you have "ref=Krannawitter" on one template but no ref= on the other. This works on the surface but is misleading under the hood. Why do you have two Krannawitter sources if only one is used, and...how is the reader to know which Krannawitter the body text cites? You'll say "click the blue number" but I suspect this has the potential to go wrong... yeah, this is how it goes wrong: three sources with ref=Calhoun.
I agree that's weird. I removed the 2004 Krannawitter source because I couldn't find any matches for it. Please remember that I personally did not enter many of these soures in. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Nothing intended to be personal here I'm sure. Hoppyh (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got abcde Bartlett with no page numbers.
I noticed this while attempting to improve the sources before nominating this as a FAC. Unfortunately, I have no printed copy of the work, and could not find it on Google Books. I have no idea what to do here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternate sources could be used. Hoppyh (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Belko, William S. is not inside a template, nor is Capers Gerald M. You need to be consistent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I have fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I get you to ditch this ref = Ford1988 and ref = Ford1994 system and just make everything ref = harv?
See my reply above - could you do one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow that and fix the others? Hoppyh (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I also get you to delete unreferenced sources?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you are indicating the 2 mentioned, absolutely. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think Lingzhi is saying that every item listed under "Sources" needs to be referred to in the article or should be removed from the list of Sources. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'll remove them if I see any more. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He rarely mentioned religion... although he loved to discuss the subject. Spot the contradiction.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. The second part was actually unsourced. I took it out. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I am very much not a fan of dangling a lone quote thing at the end of the article: " The whole South is the grave of Calhoun"   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I added a quote box for this. I still don't think that it looks excellent, but it does appear to be an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I recommend incorporating the quote and author's name into the body of the Legacy section in order to remove this objection. Hoppyh (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have bad news Display name 99. template:quote box is only for pull quotes. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Checkingfax, I have placed it in the body of the article as suggested by Hoppyh. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99. It is a powerful quote. Now that it is in the body you can add it as a pull quote in a little quote box. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think I would rather leave it in the body of the text. It seemed to be positioned as a pull quote before, which was what caused the concern. There are plenty of other quotes in the main body, and I think this will do fine with them. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He is above all sectional and factious prejudices .. Historian Charles Wiltse agrees, noting, "Though he is known today primarily for his sectionalism". Spot the contradiction (being "last" doesn't negate it).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
When considered, there isn't really any contradiction. The quotation from Adams comes in 1821, when Calhoun was still recognized as a leading national figure, rather than as a representative of Southern interests. The quotation from Wiltse in some way affirms Adams's comment by claiming that Calhoun took longer than many other political leaders of his day to take a sectional position. There might be a way to make that more clear though. You may suggest something to that end. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have attempted to remove the apparent contradiction. Hoppyh (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That looks better now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "If the whole community had the same interests..." Mine eyes glazeth over. Is there really no option other than a blockquote large enough to swallow a small country town? Is there no way to break this down into its key parts, and render them more digestible to the reader? BTW, I'm consistently not a fan of blockquotes hanging at the end of a paragraph anyhow (see two items above)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have some time later on. I will attempt to determine if anything can be done then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • in the aftermath of a minority veto, when the ubiquitous demagogues betray their constituencies and abandon the concurrent majority altogether... is missing some quotation marks somewhere. Direct quote... and.. did Freehling quote there or did you...? And... stop me if I'm wrong, but... are there sorta kinda lots of direct quotes embedded in sentences w/out quotation marks up in there? I was taught the magic number is 3: more than three sequential directly quoted words means you must set it off as a quote somehow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I barely have a clue WTH you're talking about. Please explain more clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW...the text here does look highly intellectual and does make me wonder if it needs quotation marks. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hoppyh, I just copy/pasted the phrase that Lingzhi quoted, and was only able to find it written in places that seem to copy directly from Wikipedia. Once again, I do not have the text of the source available to me, and cannot find it on Google Books or jstor. As for the intellectual sound of this sentence, at least one of the primary writers of this article before I first began work on it apparently wrote with a very eloquent style. I suspect that it could just be that. Lingzhi, please identify any other specific quotes to me that you suspect are not original to Wikipedia so that I can check them. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Your checking this out certainly satisfies me with respect to the quote issue. Hoppyh (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If further help is needed trying to get access to the source, Rjensen may be able to help. Hoppyh (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, thank you for your comments and advice on improving the article. Please see my responses above. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The more I look, the more inconsistent the refs get. Very tempted to Oppose because fixing this will be a nontrivial task, but will relent because FACs take plenty of time. Why are some instances of {{cite book}} & {{cite journal}} inside <ref></ref> tags inside the body text, but others are in the bibliography section? Why are some author names first middle last ("Patricia Cline Cohen") and others last comma first MI ("Belko, William S.")? What does "|author1 = Ford Jr. |author2 = Lacy K." mean? Choose one method and stick with it, preferably putting them in the bottom section. I will try to help but am feeling a little irritated.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, I understand the concern and I just got your message on my talk page. There is one editor who, during the GAN and FAN processes and time in between, spend time adding content to the article, some of which I opposed. His referencing style was rather sloppy and I guess I didn't do enough to fix it. I'm not sure if I'll change all the formats as you suggested, but I will try to work to keep things consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99. May I suggest a consultation with editor Jerome Kohl about F M L vs L, F M ? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(undent) No need to consult. Just make every damn template "|last= Smith |first= John" (or) "|last1= Smith |first1= John |last2= Jones |first2= Sam". I am still tempted to Oppose or suggest withdrawal.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Display name 99: I did a lot of work but much is left yet to be done. I will try again tomorrow. Maybe you can look at what I've done & imitate. Many problems being revealed in this process e.g. two sources for Capers but never mentioned in text; eighty sources for Wiltse but years never given, etc. More later. It is in a mess now because it is in an intermediate state, but it will get better and better.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help Lingzhi. I'll look at it later today and see how much I can replicate. I get the idea that I'm not as good or experienced at this as you are, and I don't want to screw up something and make more work for you. However, I will do what I can. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Display name 99 (with cc to Lingzhi and Natalie.Desautels). It is my understanding from listening to Jerome Kohl opine that body citations should be in First Middle Last format and that Bibliography and List citations should be in Last, First Middle format. Also, to use harv= parameter, three criteria must be followed. See {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} for details. Please keep me in the loop. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my opinion is correctly represented here. However, since such matters are based on what is actually practiced, it is certainly true that inverted author names are found in footnotes all over Wikipedia. I am not accustomed to seeing this done in books and journals, though my experience may be limited, and I know of no style manual that recommends this practice. (Again, I do not claim to have comprehensive knowledge of all style manuals).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your concern. The plan here is to move all of that mass of multiply-formatted shtuff out of the footnotes and into the works cited section.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, the books are looking considerably better now. Not done yet (esp. probs with John Quincy Adams), but much better. Now... journals... I have exactly zero idea why so many journals are listed in the References section (should "Footnotes" be added as a subheading there?) and so many others are listed separately in the "Specialized studies"... and WTH is "Specialized studies" anyhow? Me personally I wanna move all those journals OUT of the notes and into the "Specialized studies" (whatever that means), but that would be a task. I could do it programmatically to save time (as I did for the books), but it would still be a task. Input/opinions from other participants on this page would be welcomed..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Specialized studies I think is more commonly referred to as Scholarly studies - academic/doctorate desertations etc.. but has fallen into disuse. Rjensen is knowledgable on this. Hoppyh (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The "Specialized studies" section to me simply looks like it is meant to include any scholarly work relating to Calhoun, that has thus been cited, but is not meant to be a complete biography of him. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the presidential articles don't employ a section like this. Hoppyh (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we eliminate all 3 of the sub-sections under "Sources", simply leaving all of the works cited grouped under "Sources" or "Further Reading"? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That would be consistent with the FA presidents' articles I have looked at. You might keep Calhoun's own works separate under "works" or "primary sources". Hoppyh (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hoppyh:@Display name 99:Someone really does need to do an RS check on all those websites to determine their reliability. Some of them are looking shaky to me. Your best option would be to find the exact same information in a book or journal, especially (but not necessarily) one that you already have cited before (just because that saves trouble). In some cases you might even simply delete the info and the web cite, if it doesn't seem all that important or useful.... and finally, if you replace a web cite with a book or journal, you could, you know, move the reference down to the bottom of the page and put a {{sfn}} in the body text where the web cite used to be. :-)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Reference 109 is redlinked and needs to be fixed. I tried to repair it myself but, alas, this is not one of my strong subjects. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 05:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
yes thanks, I mentioned this above. I'm having problems with this and with books that have several volumes. I will try to sort it out later...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Prose
  • beginning with "Biographer John Niven says..." Here there's an uncited direct quote, but you might not need to add a cite because the quote seems trivial/irrelevant anyhow. Then the pronoun "He" in "He graduated as " is syntactically ambiguous (who graduated?). I would solve all these problems in one swoop by just deleting all the stuff about the teacher.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Lingzhi, I removed that material. For what it's worth, it was added in by a different editor about 2 weeks ago over my objection. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Aaaaand it was just reverted. Display name 99 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
everyone--including Yale this year--says that Yale had a major impact on his political thinking and Niven explains the influence in detail. How an intellectual got his ideas from his most important teacher is not trivial, it's important. so I restored it. 1) Brooks M. Kelly calls Dwight the "mentor" of John C. Calhoun. Kelly, 1974: p138; 2) in Brown, Calhoun's Philosophy of Politics stressed his "his celebrated discussions with New England Federalist Timothy Dwight". 3) Gordon Post (Into to Disquisition p viii) thinks Calhoun got his ideas on secession from Dwight as does Gordon Wood Radicalism p 268. [Dwight's brother was a leader of the Hartford convention of 1815 that called for secession] Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Very well Rjensen. I will not contest it further. However, Lingzhi did have a question about one of the sources. Citation 8 applies to the direct quote as well as the sentence after it, does it not? Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some depth from Coit's bio. Yes quote = Niven p 20 and next sentence. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that looks good enough, then. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Also Rjensen, when citing books, it would be helpful if you would place the full bibliographical citation at the bottom under "Sources", leaving only a smaller page citation in the body of the text. This would be good for maintaining consistency. Would you be able to do this for the 2 sources that you just added in? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(undent) @Rjensen: The reason we're having this mild disagreement is because what you're saying in the article isn't what you said you're saying. The quotes above (here on this FAC page) look very nice and very relevant. The quotes on the article about " awesome mastery of the classics" look like extraneous padding. Very strongly suggest you remove the "awesome mastery" quote and insert what you wrote just above my words here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

well i don't see a problem. Niven has an excellent statement about the powerful influence of Dwight on Calhoun's mode of thought --[Biographer John Niven says "Calhoun admired Dwight's extemporaneous sermons, his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge, and his awesome mastery of the classics, of the tenants of Calvinism, and of metaphysics. No one, he thought, could explicate the language of John Locke with such clarity.]. that seems very important in explaining how Calhoun learned to understand political philosophy & prepared himself to be a leader in that field. Second is the different point raised by Coit that Dwight & others taught Calhoun about nullification & secession & convinced him they were legitimate options. These became central themes in Calhoun's career and their origins are important. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem here, which you don't see, comes from the fact that you know what you're talking about ;-) The implication you hope readers will draw from your quote is too subtle. You imagine a reader thinking, "Oh.. Dwight explained Locke to Calhoun...Calhoun thought this over, deeply, then...compared Locke's beliefs about natural rights to his own beliefs and... OH YEAH, I GET IT!" That's a charming picture, but unfortunately you have forgotten to write to the real target audience: an intelligent but uninformed reader. So what will actually happen is more like this: "Locke... what.. but the article doesn't draw a clear connection... and in Western culture at least, it is the article's responsibility to point out all connections to me, the reader, or at least offer me a clear waypost from which I can draw an inference... so.. this must all be an exercise in padding an article." To make a long story short, please, I beg you, delete the "awesome mastery" quote and add the quotes you offered up above my post here...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
ok i'll work on it.  :) Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Questions
  • What makes Haysville Community Library a WP:RS?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
th haysville cite is a long quote from Howe, Daniel Walker. What hath God wrought: the transformation of America, 1815-1848. 2007. Pulitzer Prize winner. Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept, per above. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
it's a copy of a major RS = Graff, Henry F., ed. The presidents: a reference history. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1997. (3rd ed ??) --may be illegal copy Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything proving that it was illegal, so I kept it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes The Rational Argumentator a WP:RS?
I think it's very poor quality. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes law.jrank.org, Net Industries a WP:RS?
I think it is poor quality Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes cwmemory.com (Kevin M. Levin) a WP:RS?
I think it's very poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes ehistory.osu.edu a WP:RS, considerig thatthe bottom of the page has a caveat emptor warning: "This item was created by a contributor to eHistory prior to its affiliation with The Ohio State University. As such, it has not been reviewed for accuracy by the University and does not necessarily adhere to the University's scholarly standards"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's poor quality. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Display name 99 (talk)
  • This looks very fishy: "Jewell, Michael E. (2015) Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy." Can't find it on kentuckypress.com, which is already a deal-killer, and also his name is Malcolm not Michael.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I can attest to this. Jewell is a leading political scientists and I looked. Fulltext is on line at http://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_political_science_american_politics/14/ Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Rjensen added another Jewell citation which seemed good enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. This one is a student project: Andrew Jackson 1767–1845 A brief biography: Tariffs and Nullification – Again American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. University of Groningen.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The Welling project is pretty high quality. I've used it for many years. However, I would rather use a more sophisticated longer source. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept. If it is reliable and contains the necessary information, it is sophisticated enough. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm having problems with the Freehling (1965) reference, and I admit that I might have been the one who screwed it up. But how can a journal article that runs from pages 25 through 42 have so many cites to pages 222, 223 etc.?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The sites beyond page 42 hard to have an unknown and uncertain book by Freehling – you wrote a lot of them. So I will try to replace with better sources. Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Rjensen seems to have done so. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "He saw attacks on Eaton stemming ultimately from the political opposition of Calhoun, who had failed to silence his wife's criticisms" I'm not sure I see this information on the web source provided.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I read it that way as OK. However I would delete the low-quality journalism in the previous footnote = http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/01/andrew-jacksons-tragic-love-story Andrew Jackson's Tragic Love Story] U.S. News. April 1, 2011 Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi, I'm sorry about that. I fixed a couple and probably would have done more today and yesterday. However, a tornado taking out my neighborhood's electricity got in the way. I should start working on it tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the severe weather; hope there was no serious damage. No rush on this FAC of course, so long as it gets done some day or other.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
Lingzhi, please see my responses above. I will soon take care of the last of the concerns voiced in the image review and in the last review by Wehwalt, and from there I hope we can begin voting if nobody else has anything to say. Display name 99 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg needs a US PD tag, as per the wording of the life+70 tag
  • File:Statue_of_Hon._John_C._Calhoun_erected_in_Statuary_Hall_of_the_Capitol_at_Washington._Proceedings_in_Statuary_Hall_and_in_the_Senate_and_the_House_of_Representatives_on_the_occasion_of_the_unveiling,_(14762688871).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are any more specific copyright tags available? We need to account for both the photo and the statue, since the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptural works
  • File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg: source link is dead, is a new/updated one available?
  • File:Closeup_of_John_C._Calhoun_grave_IMG_4649.JPG: what is the copyright status of the monument? Per above, no freedom of panorama here
  • File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: a simple reproduction of a 2D work does not warrant new copyright protection in the US. What is the copyright status of the pictured work? The given tag appears to be for the photograph rather than the work itself, which is what we need to worry about.
  • File:JohnCCalhoun.jpeg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Jcctypo01.jpg needs a US PD tag and a source - the current sourcing is circular. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC) amended 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, IMDb is not a reliable source.Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed IMDb by replacing its first citation with a more reliable source and removing the second part altogether after finding too little on the film. Just so that everyone knows, I am unsure of how to deal with all of the other concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Display name 99, I've expanded a few of the above points, and if you have specific questions I'm happy to try to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Nikkimaria. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the link to File:JCCalhoun-1822.jpg is dead. I clicked on all the links and was directed somewhere. Also, I tried adding US PD tags to all the pictures on Commons as you suggested, but am unsure that I did so correctly. Would you please examine those edits to be sure? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the image description page, there are two links under 'Source' - one redirects to the image description page itself and the other returns a 404 error. Looking at the tags you've added, File:Floride_Calhoun_nee_Colhoun.jpg stands out - to use that tag you need to show that the image was published, not just created, before 1923. Can that be done? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I believe that I have fixed all the links. However, I can offer no proof that the image was published before 1923. However, Mrs. Calhoun died in 1866, and I highly doubt that the image, which was most likely created near the middle of her life, remained unpublished for as many as 57 years after her death. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
What was the first publication that we can confirm? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I regret to say that I can't confirm anything. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay. From what I can tell the portrait is in the collection of Fort Hill - could they be contacted to verify its history? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I found it in 1917 book = William Montgomery Meigs (1917). The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun. Neale Publishing Company. p. 80.  Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Great Rjensen. Your efforts to improve the sourcing for images and content in this article are appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A short textbook published in 2010 may seem like a very odd subject for a featured article nomination, but Alasdair Cochrane's first book was actually one of the first books exploring animal ethics from the perspective of political theory, something which has created a real buzz in certain corners of academic ethics/political theory, spawning numerous books, articles, theses, special issues, edited collections and even a dedicated journal. The article is fairly short, but I hope you will agree that it is comprehensive. I must thank SlimVirgin for a GA review, and hope you will enjoy reading the article. All comments are welcome. This is probably a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

Very interesting, will be commenting shortly... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Great prose, but I had to do nitpicks ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead
  • was one for the first books I think it should be "of" and not "for".
  • "Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series" is linked here but not in the main article. I don't think we will have an article on this topic in the near future, and I am not a fan of redlinks in the lead. Perhaps delink it?
Background
  • It is good to begin with the full name of the author (and link it) when you begin with the main article.
  • The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics...Garner and Martha Nussbaum. This part belongs more to reception, the time after it was published. In this section we discuss the time before and when the book became a reality.
    • Yes, I had mused on this. I have added a legacy section, which seems the appropriate place to talk about how this was an early example of the kind of work now been done. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Synopsis
  • the approaches taken by five schools of political theory A natural question would be – their approaches toward what?
  • Um, should the subheadings not be level 3, with an edit link by their side?
    • They were, but I wasn't a fan of the very short sections. Do you think I should switch them back? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Not sure, I have not seen such subheadings in other articles... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if meat needs a link
  • Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism Should not sound like Wikipedia's opinion, better add "According to Garner..."
    • I've removed this, based on SV's comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we have a few direct quotes from the book?
Reception
  • I think the reviews should be in the order: Garner, Cooke, Seymour, that is the order you list their names in.
    • I've tried to do it a little more thematically; I don't so much like "Review 1, review 2, review 3" in reception sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Where do you use blockquotes and where do you not?
    • 30 words isn't a bad rule of thumb; do you think I'm being inconsistent? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Not really, just wished to know how you decide their use. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • the first of which was the use of the concept of justice May be link "justice" again, it is relevant here and some readers may have missed the previous link. You have similar duplicate links elsewhere.
Other points
  • A better caption for Garner's image would be "Robert Garner, pictured in 2013"
  • Consistent in "open access" tags?
    • I think I am? There are two open access pieces cited; others may or may not be freely available, but they're not open access publications. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the ISBNs should be hyphenated.
    • I've dropped ISBNs in the refs, but I've added dashes for the release versions. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf: With thanks for your comments; I'll get to them properly tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support I don't find any more issues with the prose. Must make an awesome FA, just remember my suggestion about direct quotes from the book. Good luck! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi Josh, this is very similar to the version that was promoted to GA. I wonder whether it needs to be expanded a little for FA. For example, I would like to see just a bit more explanation as to why he rejects the feminist positions as providing a basis for obligations to animals. For example:

  • You write that Cochrane rejects "the idea, taken from ecofeminist theorists, that domination of women and domination of animals are both due to an ideal of domination over nature." Whose work does he cite, how would you unpack "due to an ideal of domination over nature," and how does he find their arguments lacking?
  • More needs to be said to explain Adams ("Second is Carol J. Adams's argument that exaltation of meat-eating serves to oppress women") and why Cochrane rejects her arguments.
  • It isn't clear what "Third is through the use of language" refers to in this context and what Cochrane is rejecting.
  • Re: objectification. "Cochrane … argues that the oppression of women and animals are not necessarily linked." How does he argue that?
  • The section concludes: "Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism," citing Garner, but Garner doesn't say that. He writes that Cochrane is "harsher on the claims of some traditions—the feminist care ethic in particular …"
    • Ok, interesting. Sainsf raised different concerns about the sentence, so I've dropped it entirely. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking the time to offer some comments; I'll reply to your suggestions properly tomorrow. As an initial reply, I'd certainly could expand the synopsis section, but I wanted to keep it brief. Do you perhaps think I should expand the coverage of all chapters, or do you think I should focus in on feminism given reviewers' comments about Cochrane's coverage? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would say all the sections could use some clarification (not necessarily expansion). Looking at utilitarianism, for example, you would have to be familiar with the arguments to understand that section. Why is it historically important for animals, what does it mean to say it has an egalitarian nature, and why is that a strength? I think it needs to be unpacked so that readers not familiar with it will understand.
There is also this: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." That was something I asked about during the GAN. It really isn't clear which of the book's claims it refers to, and why those claims would make treatment of animals one of the most pressing political questions. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, this is very valuable; I'll have a rejig and see what I can do. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, J Milburn.

  • The Bibliography was throwing one CS1 hidden error but there turned out to be more like 10 cite templates that needed work with the authors and editors as seen here.
  • Bullet point 15 in the Bibliography is in plain text and should be converted to a cite template.
Converted. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Converted again from non-citation style to citation template style per WP:CITEVAR. Changed it from cite book to cite journal per Josh.

I will be happy to review this further when the FA review is further along. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your efforts, but I'm afraid I have reverted your edits. Unless I'm missing something, you're "cleaning" things by changing my citation style, which is not something which should be done without discussion. I use citation templates to help with consistent formatting; they're not an end in themselves. If you're really concerned about my use of the templates, I'd rather just drop them altogether. (Relatedly: The plain-text reference would throw up errors if I put it into a citation template, despite the fact that "forthcoming" is the correct date, and the DOIs you tagged as dead are fine- perhaps there's something wrong with your script?) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As a note to anyone watching, Checkingfax has reverted me again, and promised an explanation. I am not happy with the citations at this time, but await the explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It isn't easy to see what was changed, because Checkingfax has added whitespace under the headings, which throws the diff off. [1] SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The two things that are bothering me are mentioned on my talk page. (By the way, I have not yet finished dealing with your comments, Sarah; I stepped away from the article for this evening to give Checkingfax time to respond. Thanks for your patience.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of advancing this review, I'm willing to leave Checkingfax's changes (including the change to the article's citation style), but I am still not satisfied that his/her actions were appropriate. Conversation about this continues on my talk page, but does not need to clutter up this page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Josh. For the record I did one rollback. I immediately contacted you on your talk page to avoid any panic or extra chatter here. I promised to restore your minor edits that got bombed in the process and I did when I got back from my appointment. There were a couple of resulting issues which editor Sainsf, you and I collaboratively remedied. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox checklist[edit]
  • Alt text: Pending
  • Citation bot: Passed
  • Disambig links: Passed
  • External links: Passed
  • Redirects: Passed
  • Reflinks: Passed

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fascinating article, very well written and evidently comprehensive. It is a good sign that I am left with no idea where, if anywhere, the nominator's sympathies lie between the various competing theories. Very happy to support. Three exceptionally minor comments, which don't affect my support:

  • Background and publication
    • Mildly surprising, and not especially welcome, to see the American "advisor" instead of the English "adviser", but if that's the man's official job title so be it.
  • Academic reception
    • I wasn't quite sure why we have "On the other hand" before S O'Sullivan's comments. The four words led me to expect a hostile review to follow D Dombrowski's favourable one, but both are enthusiastic.
  • Releases
    • To avoid the possibility of WP:DATED, I'd be inclined to change "The book is available in paperback..." to "The book was published in paperback..."

That's my lot. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The references in the version I looked at (at 13.24 today) look fine to me at first glance, and I don't imagine that if any change is needed it will be anything more than minor tweaking, to fit the nominator's preferred layout. A most stimulating read. Tim riley talk 12:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Tim; thoroughly appreciated. I followed Cochrane with "advisor", but it's not an official title. I've switched it. I've dropped "On the other hand", and made the change concerning "available"/"published". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Refs
You have "Cochrane 2007b" as a ref, yet there's no "Cochrane 2007a". As far as I can see, there's only one source for Cochrane in 2007 (the PhD thesis). Do you not have a handle (hdl) for the thesis? Singora (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good catch; there was a 2007a, but I hadn't added it to the bibliography. It's there now! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Image

  • Would suggest changing the Cochrane and and Garner captions to either "X, pictured in 2013" or "X (pictured) in 2013"
  • "File:An_Introduction_to_Animals_and_Political_Theory.jpg: I wouldn't call iStockphoto.com a "cover artist" - do you mean the site is the source of the owl image? Suggest rewording. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • Is there a reason why refs 26 and 42 are formatted differently to, say, 25 and 40?
  • Refs 50, 51, 53 and 55 use a hyphen which will need to be changed
  • Missing page number for ref 54
    • It would be "passim", but that's a but old-fashioned; I'm citing the book as a whole. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Note 2" finishes without a closing citation

I'll read this today and offer nitpicks later. CassiantoTalk 08:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting read, thank you. Having just read the introduction of the textbook, I think something is missing from this article. The textbook's introduction brings the issues to life whereas this article just says "animal rights". I think the article would be more interesting if it expands on it a little bit, maybe just a sentence or two. Either in Synopsis or background.

Happy to make an effort, but could you clarify this? You want me to expand a bit more on the book's introduction? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. I'd like to see a bit more on the topic of animal rights. The textbook does bring that topic to life right away in the introduction. What kind of issues are we talking about? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor comments below:

  • nonhuman or non-human? In the body it has the noun as non-humans. Should also be consistent with non-ideal or nonideal
    • I'd prefer nonhuman but non-ideal, except in direct quotes, but given Cochrane's thesis's title, I've gone with non-human. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • introducing his interest-based theory of animal rights - how many times can you introduce something? and wasn't it actually introduced in his thesis?
    • I take your point. I've tweaked this a little.
  • series's or series'?
    • Series's x for "x belonging to a single series" and series' x for "x belonging to multiple series". (Similar for species; it's an unusual case of a word ending in s for which the singular and plural form are the same. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Alasdair Cochrane, (pictured) in 2013 --> I find the parentheses quite odd
    • Very odd; if I introduced that, I wasn't thinking straight. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • after which Cochrane defends the account both against arguments in defence of speciesism and against critics --> could benefit from a rewrite, hard to grasp what he defends against
    • I've made an effort; the topics are very familiar to me but not necessarily to others. Could you let me know if that's clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • the captions seem not balanced: Adams gets a full sentence, Garner nothing but a name. I'd aim for a middle ground, e.g. along the lines of "Robert Garner, a political theorist who reviewed Cochrane's book". I don't think think pictured in 2013 is necessary;if it was 1963 then yes.
  • Maybe keep the order of reviewers consistent in Academic reception: Garner is mentioned first but then Cooke's review is first given.
    • I try to address critical responses thematically, rather than review-by-review. I may not have been fully successful here; I will have another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Cooke considered Cochrane's own.." --> I got confused here since Cooke's review had already been dealt with, so why are we going back to Cooke?
  • "Seymour argued that Cochrane's critique was superficial or "[missed] the point entirely". --> this leaves me wondering why. Any chance a succinct summary of arguments can be given?
    • Good point; no fix made yet, but I'll definitely look into making this change. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Releases --> Would Formats be more appropriate for a book?

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I'll get to your comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again; replied inline. I'll get to making the fixes I've held off in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Canadian National Vimy Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Canadian World War I memorial in Northern France, the 80th anniversary or the unveiling is this July. This article has been previous advanced for consideration and the most recent nomination in Feb 16 was rejected largely due to concerns associated with imagery copyright.

After a couple months wait, OTRS tickets have recently been completed on the Commons for a couple of these images (File:Vimy Memorial - Foundation construction.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg) which effectively confirmed that images with a status of expired are released into the public domain by Canada (with a requirement to credit). Citations are improved on another (File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg and a the painting at the bottom of the article was confirmed as acceptable to the Commons via deletion request Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/22#File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg (closed by a sysop).Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments Looking really good; will read through properly and review.

At the risk of prolonging the image pain, a couple of quick thoughts:

  • File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg is justified under a UK anonymous tag. UK law requires that this is based on reasonable research into the identity; this is reflected in the wording on the copyright tag, notes that "if you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." No information is currently provided, which invalidates the UK copyright tag.
This image is a Gallaher cigarette card from a series of Victoria Cross winners title "Victoria Cross Heroes". This particular image comes from the 5th series. The New York Public Library record of this object is the best I've seen yet with regards to completeness (complete with electronic images of both front and back) but even they acknowledge its not perfect. The only potential author of mention is Central Press, which I've take to assume from researching (The Press Photo History Project) is Central Press Photo Ltd or London but there is no mention of an individual either as photographer or artist that completed the colouring. I researched the records of other cards in the series and got no further ahead. The only hit in the online records or the UK National Archive was [2] for a card held at the Museum of English Rural Life but with no author details available and a search of the Imperial War Museum Records[3] drew a complete blank.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
As per the copyright tag, this information needs to be added to the image description on the file itself for the claim to be valid. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Vimy Ridge - Watkins memorial.JPG has a copyright tag for the photograph, but not for the owner of the underlying copyrighted text and the memorial itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Memorial is labeled as being Veterans Affairs Canada, consequently the Canadian government. I think it would be questionable whether a threshold of originality even exists here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The memorial mainly consists of the two paragraphs of text that were photographed, though, and they carry copyright. A Canadian Government copyright tag would therefore be needed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
For Canada the threshold requires that a work "not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". There is absolutely no hope of this memorial holding copyright under Canadian law. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine that exist for instance in the UK is firmly rejected in Canada as being too low of a standard for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The photograph is of two paragraphs of text (one in French, the other English). These are subject to copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The text is firmly the "short word combinations" scope for Canada. Further this is a statement of facts which in Cnaada does not meet the requisite level of creativity for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Labatt, I don't agree with you about the short word combinations point; Canadian copyright law doesn't give copyright to titles, names, slogans, short word combinations etc., but the items copied here are 104 word paragraphs. While you cannot copyright a fact in Canada, expressions of a fact - for example, a paragraph of text - are certainly copyright. The material would similarly be copyright in the US where the Commons is hosted. The File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg issue still hasn't been fixed either, - the image description hasn't been altered as per the issue raised above, rendering the UK tag invalid. Reluctantly oppose at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The photo of the Watkins memorial isn't so central to the article to base approval/opposition on it alone. For it what I'll do is remove it from the article for now, send a formal request to Veterans Affairs Canada and if they come back with release that can be confirmed via a commons OTRS ticket. Would that be a satisfactory way forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hchc2009: Still waiting for a response from Veterans Affairs Canada. I've placed a note on the image page on the Commons but the image is removed from the article until a response is received.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll copy the text to the Jones cigarette card photo. I hope that addresses that concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


Comments. As before: feel free to revert my copyediting. I enjoyed this and found it readable, but copyediting it was kind of a tough job, so I stopped reading a little more than halfway through, at Second World War. I'm hoping another reviewer will pick it up from there and make a call on supporting or opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Did a little more; I made it down to Restoration and rededication. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Reading the commentary at the deletion discussion for File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg, I find the arguments against it being free far more compelling than those in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I put up a vigorous motion to delete following the last FAC and the conclusion was to keep, the conclusion having been made by a sysop. I'm not sure more could be expected in terms of a confirming review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The "conclusion" was that life+50 applies; if that's so, absent any other information, this can't possibly be PD in the US, because that would mean copyright expired after 1996 and thus that US copyright was restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately the decision is not my call but I don't make it a habit of questioning such conclusions. Maybe @Jdforrester:, as closing admin, can offer further clarity on that discussion. Nevertheless, the image isn't so central as to merit being such a distraction so I've removed it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • King's position received unanimous support from both sides of the House and—after the Canadian federal election, 1921, there were three major parties represented. What does "both" refer to?
  • both referred to government and opposition. I've simplified the text to simply state unanimous support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The 1997 ceremony at the memorial was attended by retired Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and at least 5000 people. Subsequent smaller-scale ceremonies were held at the memorial in 1997 and 2002.—meaning there was another memorial in '97 after BM visited? And were the 5000 Canadians?
  • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The Mulroney ceremony should read 1992 not 1997. Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Heavy metal (chemical element)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In 1807 Humphry Davy first discovered metals (potassium, sodium) that floated on water. Scientists of the day debated if these new elements were really metals since all other metals then known were relatively heavy, and sank in water. After some consideration of the other properties of potassium and sodium, they were admitted to the metal club.

A little while later Leopold Gmelin, another chemist, distinguished between light metals and heavy metals on the basis of their density.

Fast forward 199 years to the present day and the term heavy metal seems to have become vernacularised in the language of science even though it has no widely agreed definition. Indeed, an earlier report (2002) described it as an effectively meaningless term.

This article surveys the field of heavy metal definitions including those based on chemical behaviour, sets out the many uses of heavy metals, and summarises their toxicity and their nutritional value.

Smokefoot expressed some amusing and well-intentioned reservations about 2009 and 2015 iterations of this article which prompted me to look much closer at the term and its use in the literature.

John had a pre-FAC hack, and offered some suggestions which I’ve since incorporated. A few other editors, such as YGB; Plantsurfer; and Frietjes, made improvements along the way. Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Support by R8R[edit]

My comments have been addressed and the article greatly improved during this FAC. I am happy to support the article. --R8R (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC) I'll review the article during this week.--R8R (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A proper review will follow soon, hopefully tomorrow, but is it not worth mentioning in the lead (or at least putting it into a note) that there is a similar term "heavy element", which refers to a different concept (high atomic number, not density)? --R8R (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Yes, this is worthwhile. I added a note in the definitions section to say that, "More generally, any element having a high density, atomic weight or atomic number may be referred to as a heavy element." I had thought that 'heavy element' referred just to elements of high atomic number but, after looking around, I see that it can also be applied to elements of high density or atomic weight. Sandbh (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall, this is a good article. A few comments:

  • A general comment that comes to my mind (please correct me if I'm missing something) is that, rather having a single undisputed definition, the term has multiple definitons depending on context, and this would be great to underline in the text. It makes little sense to talk about "heavy metals" as of dense metals in the contexts of nuclear reactions, as densities don't make the most important thing in this context, as it makes little sense to underline high atomic number in a context of, say, producing new alloys. (Lead, for example, is a heavy metal in the context of atomic numbers as well as in the context of densities.) This could possibly interfere with the small para on the term "superheavy metals."
  • I also note this should be underlined in the lead section. Right now, it only defines "heavy metals" as quite dense metals, and says there are some other meanings (no clue in how they differ from the first definition). See, for example, the lead section from the Polish article (as translated by Google Translate):
Heavy metals - imprecise term for variously defined set of metals and semi- characterized by high density, often toxic properties. In various publications can meet differing significantly limits the density above which the element is considered to be a heavy metal: 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 6 and 7 g / cm³. There are also a number of definitions based on atomic number - eg. Metals and semi-metals having an atomic number greater than 11 ( sodium ) or 20 ( calcium ), or mass number . There are also selected based on the definitions of chemical properties, such as. The number of acceptor ( acidity Lewis ) and definitions made ​​based on a range of applications including, for example. Usefulness in the manufacture of ammunition arms or conduit retaining ionizing radiation [1] .
Perhaps one way to start the article mentioning the possible definitions without going into detail reserved for the corresponding section would be "Heavy metal is a term that depending on context may specify metals of great density, great atomic number/atomic mass, or specific chemical behavior (see [[#Definitons]] below), referring to metals and sometimes some metalloids."--R8R (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I changed the lede so that it also mentions definitions based on atomic number atomic weight, and chemical behaviour. I appreciated your question; I had to think at length about it. Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the current lead certainly does a better job at introducing a reader into the term. However, I am still a little concerned with density being such a defining property. For example, the newly added information on radioisotope synthesis shows one aspect where density plays no defining role, as lead, bismuth, thorium, and uranium aren't chosen because they are dense even though they are dense; they are chosen because their atomic numbers are high. And as such I don't think it is necessary to start off with mentioning density as concept-defining even though this must've been the case historically.--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. I amended the lede to make mention of differing contexts, and I added examples of these differing contexts in the first paragraph of the definitions section. I think (hope) it's looking good now. Sandbh (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It is, and I'll strike the initial comment, but as a side note, one of the sources (Hawkes 1997) says the author was first introduced into the term as defined by (apparently) chemistry, and this might also have to be be listed among possibilities in the first sentence.--R8R (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. The opening sentence of the lede now makes mention of some of their chemistry. Sandbh (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (minor) I can't help but notice that densities of the heaviest elements have not yet been measured, so the colored table must have a note on that. Or note the approach the German Wiki uses.
Done. Note added to table title. Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The German Wiki has also given me the idea to address the red sea in the middle of the table, by splitting it into amber (10–19.99) and red (≥20) like they do (notice how they bold Re, Os, Ir, Pt, and Np)! Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The amber is pretty! Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the Etymology section could be named History, I think it would be great to briefly mention the emerging of the term "heavy metal"/"heavy element" in a context of nuclear reactions.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 2:29 pm, Today (UTC+3)
  • (very minor) "Magee notes that the actinides were once thought to represent..." On reading this, I stopped for a second and thought if this Magee had even been mentioned. I learned that this is indeed the first place where a reader meets this name. I think a little trouble could be saved by moving the reference to after the name, i.e. "Magee[50] notes that the actinides were once thought to represent..."--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

More to come later.--R8R (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't really judge the Uses sections without looking too closely, which I must be unable to do for now, but could you explain the general principle on which the uses to be mentioned were selected? For example, it doesn't mention two of the three uses that came to my mind: tungsten wire in light bulbs, lead--acid batteries (batteries have only been mentioned in one word, while this is the largest use of lead), and lead bullets (which are mentioned). There may be a good rationale behind this, but I'd like to know it. (I'd want to add that I can't immediately think of a good way to choose which uses are important enough to be mentioned and which aren't.)--R8R (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. I reorganised and supplemented the uses section so that it now refers to general uses, density-based uses, (high) atomic number reliant uses, and other uses. I'm not aware of any atomic weight based uses. I haven't said anything about W in light bulbs because this use, as I understand it, is based on the high melting point of W rather than something more specifically associated with it being a heavy metal. Same principle applies to Pb in batteries. Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This explains a lot and the section looks great after the reorganization.--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Before I continue the review, I would love to support further great improvements the article is undergoing during the FAC.--R8R (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome onboard :) Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll skip the Toxicity section for a while and comment on Biological role. Both sections seem a bit too short. Of course, this can't be an issue to ask to address without specifying what, if anything, is missing, and unfortunately, toxicity and biology are not fields I am an expert at. However, regarding the Bio section, I would like to propose, similarly to what has been done for the Uses section, a general story that focuses not only on what elements do, but also on the correlation with the term "heavy metal". So I suggest the section start like this: "Heavy metals don't have basic functions in living organisms, but some period 4 metals are trace essential elements, with iron used for hemoglobin in blood, zinc for X, Y for A, Z for B, etc. Heavier metals are rarely important for living organisms: of all period 5 elements, molybdenum is essential for humans [and I don't know if any other period 5 elements are used by organisms for anything]. In period 6, only tungsten is used by some bacteria and not eucariots, and the only metal used in biology heavier than tungsten is uranium also used by some bacteria." Maybe it would be great to say they are not so important in organisms because they are rare in nature (if this can be referenced). This, by the way, brings me into the question if we should have a section on occurrence and formation of these elements (which I think would be nice to have).--R8R (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Double sharp has pointed me to the fact uranium is not necessary for those bacteria, although beneficial; it would be great to point out there are metals that have this property (DS hints the same is true for tantalum in human body).--R8R (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Ta is biocompatible and for that reason gets used in implants. But generally Ti is used instead for cost purposes. Most of the refractory metals work (in particular, Ti, Hf, Nb, Ta, Re). Note that these are the pure metals; as ions, some (Nb) are more toxic than others (Re, which from limited animal studies appears to be about as harmful as table salt – i.e. not very). Double sharp (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've edited and augmented the Bio section, so it now surveys the period 4, 5 and 6 elements, as well as the ones that are not essential but have beneficial effects anyway. We can discuss further but I see no value in referring to the period 4 elements in this section as something other than heavy metals---they meet the criteria and even the literature refers to them as essential heavy metals. I'll see if I can find something about the heavier ones not being so important, due to their rarity. On a Formation and Occurrence section, I presume you're talking about nucleosynthesis, the iron peak, and whether they are lithophiles or chalcophiles etc? Sandbh (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply it should somehow be noted that period 4 elements are not heavy metals or something---perhaps wrong wording on my side. Re Formation and Occurrence: yes, exactly.--R8R (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW I found a reference on the link between essentiality and abundance, and have weaved that into the paragraph as an intro to the heavier heavy metals. Sandbh (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Since Toxicity and Biological role have been merged (which generally makes sense), I'll look at what's been done closely when reviewing the part on toxicity.--R8R (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have carefully read the resulting section and I see no major issue with it. There is a minor one, however: I think it's illogical to have information on positive effects of heavy metals to be both preceded and superseded by the information on negative effects; I think the latter should be put in the beginning of the section?--R8R (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That was good feedback. I've split the Toxicology and biological role section back into two sections (which is the way I always preferred it) and made some other adjustments. I think the flow should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I'll strike the initial comment--R8R (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, my review is finished, and I am waiting only for the issue just above to be resolved or explained and for a new section on formation and occurrence. The article has undergone great changes and I'll be happy to support it once these are resolved.--R8R (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A new section on formation, occurrence and abundance has been added. Sandbh (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well done. Just two notes:
"Rather, they are largely synthesised by neutron capture." -- I think it would be great to briefly mention the difference between the s- and p-processes, mainly because you later explain what happens in the s-process.
I added a note to the end of the neutron capture paragraph, giving examples of p-process drivers. Since the focus of the paragraph is on the major production route for the post- iron peak elements, and p-processes are minor players I think a note will be appropriate in this case. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
A typo on my side: I meant the s- and r-processes. Anyway, I just added a little info on that (tried to add not too much to not go off the topic); reorganize that in any way if you want.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Stars lose most of their mass when this is ejected late" -- this caught my eye while I was reading it. What's "this"? Oh, I got it; come to think of that, it was clear enough, but I put "it" instead.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC))
--R8R (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional comments

(these comments will not affect my readiness to support the upcoming promotion, as the following is not something explicitly stated in the FA criteria; still, they are worth addressing)

  • The red used in both tables makes symbols to difficult to read. Easy solution: replace it with #FFAAAA. An explanation would include the fact the color for wikilinks is #0645AD, and color contrast between the background and text should be greater than or equal to 4.5 to follow the standards (this, by the way, does make the text easier to read).
    I changed the color a bit; do they look better?--R8R (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the most outstanding metal in the occurrence table shouldn't have the least distinguishable color.--R8R (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The new colours are fine. Are you wanting the background colour of Fe to stand out more? I'm not happy about the width of the abundance table, and am not sure why it is wider given it's based on coding used in the density table but I presume this is a minor point that can be worked on in the background. Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. (Also, it would make sense to me if the most abundant metals were red and orange going to green and blue, but I won't insist. Again, color picking is not a part of the FA criteria and this is an FAC, after all.) My first thought was that it was because the table had to fit in all the labels: I've changed the font size and, as expected, the table became smaller; is this what you wanted?--R8R (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Fe looks like a beacon now, which is good. The colours are that way so that the less abundant heavy metals have the more alarming colours. There's a little bit of literature on this re shortages of strategic metals. Does that make sense? The table width is better, thank you. I hadn't thought about changing the font size. I thought it had something to do with the column widths not behaving whereas they do behave as expected in the density table. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Glad to know I helped. Re red--blue transition: oh yeah, reasonable enough. I took a closer look at the table, and the solution turned out to be poor (working, but not being nice): both tables now had equal widths but different font sizes. I spent almost an hour trying to find a good solution, and the solution was to simply break the title of the second table into two lines.--R8R (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Pretty colours! Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And I adjusted the table heading some more so that it's nicely spaced and centred. Thank you for your well spent-hour. Who would've thought it was the stupid title, even though the row spanned all 20 columns. More later---have go and walk the dog. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp: thanks for your compliment. I basically applied what I learned from DePiep when constructing my first version of recolored PT: all colors should have same saturation and value in the HSV color space. To pick them, I sought for a shade of read distant enough from wikilink color to pass the distunguishability test and constructed other colors with same S and V (they all pass the test as well).
Sandbh: thanks for your appreciation. I was surprised as well, I tried that when I couldn't find any reason why the tables were different even with a text analyzer. Who could've thought.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Lead_shielding.jpg: can you fix the auto-generated source?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Laser_glass_slab.jpg: if you follow the "site policies" link from the current licensing tag, you'll find that "they consider their work potentially copyrighted" - can we clarify this status? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The site policies page says that Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory '("allows "non-commercial, educational, or scientific use," but other work potentially copyrighted)'. I presume our proposed use would fall within the non-commercial etc policy. Is this acceptable? Sandbh (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No - Wikipedia does not allow non-commercial or "educational use only" licenses, except as fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Right then. I've changed the image. How does it look now? Sandbh (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Nikkimaria: Could you have please review the new image for compliance? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

N[edit]

Oppose I am sorry, but I seriously think this article does not cover the subject matter very well. I have yet to see anybody call vanadium a heavy metal, and the article spends more time talking about vanadium and chromium than say lead, gold, mercury. No serious chemist in their right mind would call iron or zinc heavy metals. Most times I've heard the term heavy metal has been in reference to environmental and toxicity aspects so I suggest expanding a bit on that. I seriously recommend restructuring the article to focus on period 5 and 6 and try to only mention casually definitions including anything in period 4 since pretty much almost all elements up to zinc are used in biology. Nergaal (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Nergaal, this is good feedback.
To address your concerns I:
  • adjusted the lede so that toxicity was mentioned earlier on, and added some words about environmental concerns
  • moved the toxicity section (and the accompanying nutrition biological role section) higher up in the article and added a paragraph on the environmental aspects of heavy metals
  • added a paragraph, in the definitions section, mentioning the disputed status of some of the period 4 d-block metals as heavy metals (i.e. Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn).
Counting individual mentions of elements, those in periods 5+ are now mentioned nearly twice as often as those in period 4.
In light of all of the above, could you please reconsider your Oppose? Sandbh (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
DOn't get me wrong, the article is nice but I do find it misleading. It is slightly better yet it is still tilted towards 1st row. Maybe outside my field people actually use this term loosely, but AFAIK, all (maybe except chromium) metals in 1st row plus Mo and W are used in biology in various enzymes. So to a certain degree I think it is unlikely that these elements are "toxic heavy metals". On the other hand, exactly because all the other are not used in any roles in the cell, they are likely toxic. I would like to see a quote saying Mn Co and Ni are heavy metals. I suggest focusing even more on the non-1st row with something like "while 1st row has been mentioned as HM, pretty much everybody agrees that elements after X are heavy metals. For examepl, y is bad, z is really bad, zz is deadly, etc." Currently definitions and etymology feel like they overlap quite a bit. Also, most references need cleaning up since they have no "." after initials. Nergaal (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.
1st row metals
I think you are right. All the metals from V to Zn (Mo and W) appear to be used in biology. With the exception of hexavalent Cr, I wouldn't think of any of them as being particularly toxic (except if I was exposed to some of their fumes or carbonyls). Looking at the metal toxicity article, I can see entries for Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn poisoning; and Emsley, in Nature’s building blocks, talks about mining or industrial hazards attributed to Ti and Ni. So I can see that these metals are toxic in some situations, as well as being essential nutrients in trace amounts.
Anyway I found a better reference challenging the status of all the metals from V to Zn as heavy metals, and I found another reference disputing the status of e.g. In, Rh and Os as heavies, on the grounds that they're too rarely encountered as environmental hazards. So I updated the paragraph about all of this in the Definitions section, to give it more diverse perspective.
I presume that since Mn, Co and Ni are now picked up as metals whose status as heavy metals has been challenged, it won't be necessary to include a citation that mentions them as heavy metals? They're picked by any of the density-based definitions, and by Hawkes' periodic table location definition.
I’ll have a closer look at your suggestion about y is bad, z is really bad. It may not be feasible. The only possibly bad non-1st row transition metal that comes to mind is Os. I suspect that none of the others are particularly "bad" except for the ones that are mined a lot and I'm guessing there are not many of these among the heavier transition metals (whereas a lot of the 1st-row metals are mined a lot/used by industry).
I reviewed the toxicity of the transition metals; the period 4+ post-transition metals and metalloids; the Ln; and the An up to U. Here are the results (elements not listed have no more than low/mild/moderate toxicity):
Period 4
Sc...some of its compounds (it has been suggested) are carcinogenic
Cr…can be toxic in excess; hexavalent form is carcinogenic
Mn…dust/fumes damage the central nervous system; permanganate ion is toxic
Fe…> 5 gm in soluble form causes liver and kidney damage and can be lethal
Co…a large dose could be life threatening; suspected carcinogen
Ni…associated with mining and industrial hazards; dust is carcinogenic; carbonyl is lethal
Cu…can be toxic in excess; 1 gm of copper sulphate can be fatal; survivors have suffered major organ damage
Zn…can be toxic in excess
As…bad
Se…> 5 mg is highly toxic
Period 5
Mo…highly toxic in larger doses
Ru…little threat; RuO4 is toxic
Pd…could be toxic in higher doses
Ag...extremely toxic to aquatic plants and animals
Cd…bad
In…toxic if more than a few mg are consumed
Sn…organometallic compounds are toxic
Sb…can kill
Te…2 gm of sodium tellurate can be lethal
Period 6
Os…little threat; OsO4 is toxic
Hg…bad
Tl…bad
Pb…bad
Bi…damages liver if taken in excess
An…radiation aside, U is poisonous
On this basis I don’t see a need for changing much. Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I've expanded the toxicity section and merged it with the biological role section, so that the whole section now talks about the more toxic HMs, then the essential HMs but with the potential for toxicity; and lastly the non-essential ones. Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Overlap: Definitions and etymology
The two sections look at the topic from different perspectives. The Definitions section covers the present situation; the Etymology and usage section traces the chronology of the term and its usage over time. At the expense of some overlap, I think its preferable to keep the two perspectives separate for the benefit of the reader who may not be that interested in the historical details.
Tilt towards 1st row?
I rechecked mentions of named first row transition metals, and other heavy metals (not counting the Notes). Going by section, the count is Lede (0/0); Definitions (0/4) [excl. the challenge para.]; Etymology (2/1); Toxicology (5/11); Biological roles (7/1); Uses (20/42)—Overall (34/59). This appears to be a reasonable distribution. In the Biological roles section, the 7:1 tilt in favour of the first row transition metals is due to the fact that these metals happen to be ones with nutritional roles.
References: "." after initials
I’ve been following the referencing guide from my alma mater, which doesn't use " . " after author initials. Is there a MOS requirement for this? (if there is I could nae find it) Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The class A/B donors is something I haven't heard and is not wikilinked. Are your referring to hard/soft donors? Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Sort of. The hard/soft terminology, as I understand it, comes from Pearson (1963, 1968, 1969). His work is based on Ahrland et al. (1958) who introduced the class A/B/borderline categories. Nieboer and Richardson (1980) took the hard/soft concept, which they said was restricted to inorganic systems, and applied it to biological systems. Sandbh (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll reply alter, but could you find a way to emphasize the elements that everybody agrees are heavy? For example metalloid has a clear group of commonly recognized ones. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I amended the lede to make mention of Cd, Hg and Pb as examples of heavy metals that are toxic. I guess these are the three most well known heavy metals in that context. I left out As given it seems to have some kind of biological role, and it's commonly regarded as a metalloid. Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The element articles are not particularly good sources. Just check out IDLH and see how many elements not listed by you are there. The reason people don't tend to discuss some of the heavier elements is because they are not commonly encountered in everyday applications, not because they are not toxic. Even W is listed if you seach here. Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Nergaal I appreciate your thoughts. I was guided by Emsley's assessment of the toxicity of the period 4–6 HMs, supplemented by the other seven references cited in the toxicity section. (W is mentioned in the note at the end of the first paragraph of this section). Metals I haven't mentioned apparently have relatively low/mild/moderate toxicity. For example, going by IDLH and Emsley, V2O5 causes local respiratory effects after a few hours of exposure; Zr compounds "possess a low order of toxicity"; Pt may cause an allergic reaction in some sensitised individuals in which they experience symptoms similar to asthma or a cold.
Of course, any substance will be toxic if administered in a sufficiently large dose. My objective in this article was to present a global view of heavy metals rather than concentrating on any particular aspect, such as toxicity. For that reason I've attempted to focus the toxicity discussion on the more notably toxic heavy metals, rather than every heavy metal (which is something I suggest would be the purview of an article such as metal toxicity).
In any event I checked for entries in the IDIL index for the other HMs not mentioned in the toxicity section: Sc, Ti, Ga, Ge; Y, Nb, Mo, Tc, Pd; La/Lu, Hf, Ta, Re, Ir, Au, Po and At. Either there was no entry or the entry appeared to be benign. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: I'll cross check the toxicity section against Casarett & Doull's Toxicology, which seems to be the gold standard. Sandbh (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noticed the occurrence section. Why aren't the two PT images containing the same highlighted elements? And what are the lines/boxes supposed to represent? Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a large discrepancy in the second table and the Goldschmidt classification one. Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The first table shows the density of all the elements, including the artificial ones; the second table shows the abundance and primary geochemical classification of the naturally occurring elements in the Earth's crust (thanks to User:Double sharp for help with the second table; also there is a note at the end of the Least abundant legend saying that elements having abundances a lot less than the 1 part per trillion of Ra and Pa are not shown). The dividing line divides the lithophiles from the chalcophiles. The boxes around Au and Sn show that although these two elements lie on the chalcophile side of the table they actually occur as, respectively, a siderophile and a lithophile. This is mentioned in parentheses after where it says "chalcophiles". The Goldschmidt periodic table shows the geochemical classification of the elements in the whole of the Earth, rather than just the crust, hence the difference. Does this help? Sandbh (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose At this point the references are very poorly formatted. Initials on names are missing "."s. There are very few links to any online content for references. Surly there are some google books and web sites that will be useable. There are also very few wikilinks for authors, or publishers. There are other minor problems such as ref "Close F" with date: 12015. Some references are quite old, and should be replaceable by newer ones. Also the Neodymium sulfate picture has no alt text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Graeme.
I’ve been following the referencing guide from my alma mater, which doesn't use " . " after author initials. Is there a MOS requirement for this? (If there is I couldn't find it.)
There are 15 links to online references, including Duffus' IUPAC paper, Hawkes' discourse on what is a heavy metal, and Habashi's paper on Gmelin's 1817 Handbuch, in which the latter appears to have first distinguished between light and heavy metals on the basis of density. I don't link to Google books since, in my experience, Google periodically changes the results the views it offers for any particular book. In the past I've saved Google books links in other topic areas only to find that when I wanted to go back and recheck the search result I can no longer access that particular view. If I find relevant and reliable web pages I'll link to them however I find that the bar for reliability eliminates the sizeable majority of them.
Wikilinks for authors and publishers is not something I knew was an FAC requirement. It wasn't for the last FAC article I worked on in April 2015 (Astatine) and I see there were no publisher wikilinks on yesterday's FA article, Robert of Jumièges (nor Google books links). Are wikilinks for authors and publishers an FAC requirement?
I've rechecked and corrected the formatting of the references.
The older references appear to largely deal with descriptive chemistry. This kind of chemistry writing largely dried up from about the 1950s onwards, or has been forgotten. As I understand it, age doesn't disqualify older works; they still have value. I remember looking for more recent references in some cases however later references tend to deal more with principles and gloss over descriptive nuances. If there are any particular references you think need to be updated I'd be happy to review these.
The neodymium sulfate image now has an alt tag. Sandbh (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Man Trap[edit]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the very first episode broadcast of Star Trek: The Original Series, making it the prime candidate for the front page spot on September 8th this year to mark the 50th anniversary. So this has been worked up through GA, and has gone through a Peer Review as well as taking on-board the previous comments received during the successful FAC of "Space Seed" (which please note would be the backup if this FAC fails). Miyagawa (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I had my say at PR and it appears to meet the FA criteria. It looks to be comprehensive and well-written. I've archived one reference. Z105space (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for archiving that btw. I've been having some trouble with using archive.org on my version of Chrome, but I've since realised it still works in another browser and so have started using it again via that instead. Miyagawa (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Checkingfax

  • Images were found to be resized to 70% because of using unnamed upright parameter: I resized images to 100% by removing the upright parameter from each image containing it.
  • Checked article for MoS compliance: Passed.
  • Refined structure.

Looking good. Please ping me back for my !vote after review is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Checkingfax: Seeing as we haven't had any further points added in a few days and we're already at two supports and a leaning support, I figure I'd ping you back to see if you were happy to add a vote. Thanks, btw. Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Image captions could be more succinct
  • Toolbox
    • Alt text: Pass[4]
    • Citation bot: No changes were required[5]
    • Disambig links: Pass[6]
    • Edit count: ? (there are no FA instructions on how to present the results of this tool here)
    • External links: Pass[7]
    • Peer review: Found issues here
    • Redirects: 3 issues[8]
    • Reflinks: Pass[9]
  • Date harmony: Pass

Support assuming nitpicks from the Toolbox are addressed. – Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks - just to note that I haven't been able to fix those issues yet as I can't seem to the relevant website to load. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, got them to work directly from the toolbox. There are three redirects - I've requested the deletion of one as I can't find any reference to it's relevance. The other two are using the disambiguation used elsewhere in Star Trek articles (both the current and previous versions of the disambiguation formatting). The javascript peer review makes several suggestions - however, the lead is already the suggested length per the article size as stated at WP:LEADLENGTH. There is no free use image available that would be appropriate for the infobox. There is criticism of starting a section heading with "the", but I don't think there is a better way to refer to "the creature". Perhaps it could be renamed to the "Salt vampire" but that isn't an official designation. However, it did cause me to check for some British spellings, and I'm afraid my native spellings have crept in - two words corrected to American English. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Comments: Overall, this is looking good. The prose needs a little tightening, but it seems to be comprehensive overall. A few comments on the lead, with more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast": Why make this so convoluted? Perhaps just "It was the first episode of the show to be broadcast"?
  • Normally I'd say "It was the first episode of the first season"; except this is an unusual case it was only the first episode to be broadcast and really the sixth episode. It's worded like that to avoid the usual drag of IP editors coming in and making the silly edit while arguing that either "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (the two pilots) were the first episode. Hence the unusual broadcast wording. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So why not simply "It was the first episode of the show to be broadcast"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In fact, the more I think about it, why not have the first sentence of the lead as ""The Man Trap" is an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek, the first to be broadcast." That might make more sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Works for me - that change has been made. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Set in the 23rd century, the series follows the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew aboard the Starfleet starship USS Enterprise.": I don't know if this is the standard format for Star Trek, but it doesn't quite work here. We have a sentence about the episode, then this sentence about the whole show, then a sentence again about the episode. I think the best bet might be to move "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast, airing on NBC on September 8, 1966. "The Man Trap" was written by George Clayton Johnson and directed by Marc Daniels" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead.
  • It was a move suggested during the FAC of "Space Seed", but happy to rearrange. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Johnson took on the writing duties after Roddenberry disliked Erwin's work on another plot proposal": Unless I'm missing it, I don't think we have the reason the Erwin was removed as writer in the main body.
  • The only parts we have on it are in the first three paragraphs of writing. Essentially Roddenberry was notorious at messing his writers around, and this was simply the first occasion that he swapped out one writer for another without all that strong a reason. Personally, I think he knew he had a well known writer who wanted to be involved and so swapped out a friend so that the more famous writer had something to do. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but the first three paragraphs of writing do NOT say why Roddenberry moved him on. The only place in the article that says why Erwin was dropped is here in the lead. We need to put this in the main body if we can source it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see what's happened here. At some point Erwin was included in the lead instead of a further reference to Johnson. I've corrected it, so it should now reference the same information as the body of the article. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the "saviour" inclusion in the lead. It seems a little strong, to be honest. In any case, why are we using the British spelling of saviour?
  • Removed from the lead, and fixed the spelling in the body. The error is because I'm a native British writer and saviour/savior wasn't a word I was aware of having a different spelling in American English until your comment. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've copy-edited the lead a little, please revert anything you don't like or that I have messed up.
  • Do we need to make more of its selection as the first episode? Why was it chosen? (I took out the reference to "The Naked Time" as we don't really need that level of detail here) And should we be making clear that this was an all-new show?
  • I've expanded that part in the lead a little. Essentially there were four options, and it came down to "The Naked Time" and "The Man Trap", with the latter chosen because it was scarier. Miyagawa (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jumping ahead a little to the Broadcast section (where we have the details about its selection), was there any publicity about the new series? If so, that could be added to this article as it would affect this episode.
  • I've taken a look at some of it for work on other articles and bizarrely (at least for modern shows), it doesn't really discuss this episode at all. They avoided mentioning Spock where they could (or mistook him for a martian) as they thought the ears made him look the devil (one publicity photo featured him in costume but without the ears) and concentrated quite a bit on Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand. They used her so much, that she thought she was going to be one of the three main characters. The concentration was about explaining the premise which was still quite unusual for mainstream television (although we take science fiction for granted these days, Star Trek and Lost in Space really did re-write the rulebook and stopped science fiction from automatically being considered to be children's programming). Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, jumping ahead, it is a modern phenomenon that a first episode has a big audience which then declines for subsequent ones. Was this the case here? It might be interesting to see how the first episode fared compared to others. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well there are two things that need to be considered here. The first is that back in 1966, there were only three channels. Star Trek, at least in the first season generally came second in the ratings from what I can see. In this particular case it came first, but that would be possible because NBC broadcast new shows a week earlier than either of their competitors. So "The Man Trap" went up against two repeats. But I can absolutely add something to discuss the following weeks' figures. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added a further paragraph. While it's true that the overall ratings dropped, which can be attributed to the new broadcast going up against repeats on the other two channels, the show did go on to win further timeslots. I included the ratings from the next two episodes to show the pattern. Miyagawa (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Plot: A few issues here. I've copy-edited directly but there's a few things I can't clear up. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • "The starship USS Enterprise arrives at planet M-113 for the medical exams of Professor Robert Crater (Alfred Ryder) and his wife Nancy (Jeanne Bal)": Maybe a word on why they are on that planet in the first place?
  • I've added that it's a research station. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "travel to the surface using the transporter": I don't know if this is the standard way of writing this, but would "transport to the surface" be a little tighter?
  • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In passing, I think "Enterprise" sounds less good than "the Enterprise", but I think the usage here is probably more correct and matches other articles.
  • "and Kirk teases McCoy about his affection for Nancy Crater ten years earlier": The "and" is a bit awkward here, and does not really place this chronologically. Before the transport, during it or after it? Or just make it a sentence by itself, perhaps?
  • I've edited this. The teasing took place in the transporter room just prior to the transporter being activated. Miyagawa (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Nancy arrives" and "Kirk sends the dazed Darnell outside" and "Crater arrives": Arrives where? Outside where? Where are we? And where is Crater at this point? I think we need to say where the action is taking place at the beginning of the episode.
  • I've edited those lines to try to make it clearer. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "McCoy and Spock determine that Darnell died from having all salt drained from his body. Kirk beams back down to the planet with McCoy and two crewmen, Green (Bruce Watson) and Sturgeon (John Arndt). They spread out to search, but Crater slips away.": Too much too quickly I think. How do they determine? An examination? (And why did they not do that first?) Why does Kirk beam back down? (And would "transports" be better here?) and for what are they searching? Crater slips away from who, and how? Just a little more detail required I think.
  • I've edited this to be more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Kirk and McCoy find Sturgeon's body, unaware that Green is dead too": Not sure about this. We don't actually know that Green is dead, so this is rather abrupt. How is it conveyed in the episode?
  • Only because the creature turns up appearing as Green and later scans show only a single inhabitant (Crater) of the planet. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Now, I have a vague memory (I'm a long way from being a Star Trek fan, but remember bits of this episode) of Green standing over his own body. Is that from this episode? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I had to look it up on Trekcore (a good website for screengrabs) and you're right [10]. Miyagawa (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • ""Green" roams the halls": Halls? Corridors, surely?
  • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "attacking several crew members": Are any killed?
  • "They stun him": How?
  • With their own phasers - added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "out of affection": For Crater or Nancy?
  • For Crater - added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused after the third paragraph of "plot" where the action is taking place. The ship or the planet?
  • I've added a line to the end of the previous paragraph to make it clear that they return to the Enterprise. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "so Kirk orders "McCoy" to administer truth serum": The first time I read this, I missed that this was not the real McCoy. Maybe spell it out that this was the creature. Also, where is the actual McCoy? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've made it clear it's a fake McCoy. The real one is still in his cabin where we find him later. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing: More copy-editing done, please feel free to revert anything. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • We are using Roddenberry's original "pitch" but we need to make it clear to whom he is pitching it. I'm also a little concerned that we are verging into OR here. As this is a primary source, we need to be very careful, and when we say "The plot featured in "The Man Trap" appeared in Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for Star Trek" we are interpreting the source. The plot in that pitch is sufficiently different to the broadcast story to make this not just a straightforward fact; in reality, only the title is the same. If we are going to go further than say that a story called The Man Trap featured in the pitch, and give an outline of that plot, we really need another source which makes this claim.
  • I've edited this to make clear that the same title was used in the pitch in order to remove the OR problem. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The story was handed to Lee Erwin": Would it be more encyclopaedic to say that Erwin was commissioned to produce a treatment (or a full script, whichever it was)
  • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "decided to use the 1953 science fiction novel The Syndic by Cyril M. Kornbluth as the basis for the story": It's not quite clear here who decided to use it; Johnson or Black?
  • Johnson - edited to be more specific. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Roddenberry felt that Johnson's treatment was wrong": Wrong how? Badly written? Not what he wanted in a story?
  • Simply that it didn't initially fit his vision of the series; most of it was in Roddenberry's head at the time as all Johnson would have had to go on was the series bible. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we're still a little light on what happened to Erwin. Had he produced a script, or just the treatment? How did he take it? Why was he moved on? Did he ever write anything else for Star Trek?
  • I've added a little more - he was paid a bonus for his treatment (I haven't seen anything that said he wrote a full script, and I'm sure that would have been leaked at some point if he had) and later wrote an episode in the third season (which I've added as a note). Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We have now got the part about the "kill fee" (which I'd never heard of; learn something new every day!), but we already say that he was paid in full to terminate his contract. Is this duplication or two separate fees? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Two different payments. Erwin probably didn't complain too much because it seems he was paid more for his treatment not being used than if it had been... and they wondered why Star Trek kept going massively over budget. I've edited it to say that it was two separate payments. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "so the ability for the creature to make apparitions was added back into the story": Was it ever in the original story, or just in Roddenberry's pitch?
  • I've edited this to say it was in the pitch, not the original story. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Stan Robertson at NBC agreed with the need for more action, and suggested to Roddenberry that they may wish to get medical advice over whether the draining of a chemical from a person would kill them instantly.": I'm not sure how seeking medical advice is going to give more action to the story.
  • Yes, that shouldn't have been connected like that - I've added an "also" before "suggested". Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the creature in "The Man Trap" could be the last of the species, comparing it to the reduction in numbers of American bison since the European colonization of the Americas, which Roddenberry found intriguing": What was he comparing? You can't compare a creature to a reduction in numbers.
  • I've just re-read the source and he pretty much does, although this would have been from the sixties and he thought the Bison were going extinct. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "one of which was to restore the name "The Man Trap"": Again, I'm not sure that it technically ever was called Man Trap, unless we are doing some OR on the pitch.
  • Modified per your concerns. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "adding that "There could have been a hell of a lot more art in Star Trek if GR had kept his hands off the scripts."": This is a slightly meaningless quote. Can we clarify what he means by this?
  • I've removed the quote and replaced with an interpretation of what he's getting at. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap"": Again, this is vague. What does he mean?
  • I've added that he was referring to the characterisation specifically. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap", admitting that he did not like Spock and was concerned that the character would not be understood from this one episode": This is a bit clumsy; are these two separate concerns, or the same concern expressed in two ways? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • They're linked, but I've broken it into two separate sentences now. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Johnson was pleased with the final episode, although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap" due to differences in characterisation": Still not quite right; what differences? Between the characters in this story and in the whole series? Needs to be a bit clearer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added further detail as I've alluded to but wasn't as specific about previously. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Break[edit]

Filming

  • "predominantly shot on the bridge": Can we be more precise here? At first, I imagined we were over water! Is there a link, or can we spell it out bridge of the Enterprise?
  • Made it clear as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and Whitney later recalled that the operator could see right up her skirt throughout the shoot and would occasionally try to get personal with her using the puppet": Not quite sure we have encyclopaedic tone here, so I think some rewording is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed the "gets personal" to a more straightforward "grope" as I think that was what was being suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The creature:

  • "Daniels had some apprehension about using a monster of the week format, asking "Do you go for cheap thrills or a more intelligent approach?", adding that they decided to "treat everything as if it were real" in order to ensure that the audience bought into it.": Is there a link for "monster of the week", and should it be in quotation marks? And this is a long sentence; the part after "adding" does nit quite fit and perhaps needs to be a separate sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Split into two as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to add a brief mention that I'm aware that there is a publicity photo of Kirk and the creature which would be free use right now because all the Star Trek images from that era did not have their copyright renewed. However, we only upload the ones onto Commons where we can directly evidence precisely when they were published (which is usually through someone selling them on eBay with the original documentation for it attached). We're building up some images now, although the eBay sellers have realised what we're doing and are now masking the images or avoiding uploading scans of the relevant documents. But hopefully at some point, we'll get the image for this. We certainly already got it for "Spock's Brain" so anything is possible. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Themes: Not too keen on this section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • " demonstrated a mantra within the series": A mantra is a sacred phrase, so this is really not the right word here. And you can't demonstrate a mantra.
  • Changed to "recurring theme". Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the original series showed that predators such as the salt vampire were considered to be a lower life form and therefore should be destroyed": How does it show that something is considered. I think I'm missing the meaning here. Either they were considered in the series, or it showed it as a fact. We can't have both.
  • Removed "considered to be" to present it as fact. There was no consideration in the series, just that the reviewer felt that was what the show was demonstrating. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the argument is presented that such creatures should not be killed; however, Geraghty felt that the writers sought to ensure that viewers did not feel any sympathy for the creature by revealing its true appearance as it died": What argument? Who is presenting it? I'm a bit lost by this. And we've just compared it to a helpless dog... This might need a rethink,
  • I've redrafted this and the surrounding lines. I hadn't realised how contradictory they sounded when I first wrote them. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "it undoubtedly troubled McCoy for some time after the event": I really don't think this belongs in this article.
  • I've removed that line and the corresponding image. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "David Greven, in his book Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek, compared the creature from "The Man Trap" to T'Pol's (Jolene Blalock) actions towards Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Twilight". He considered T'Pol to be "draining him of life force", in a similar manner to the salt vampire.": And again, in the context of this episode this is irrelevant, and meaningless to the general reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Driveby comment: I think it's a shame to see genuine academic analysis being removed from the article. Perhaps an effort could be made to (more) clearly state the significance of the claims for this episode. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added the McCoy line back in, although in an edited form (and therefore I can add the image back too). However I've left the Star Trek: Enterprise reference off, as I take the point from Sarastro that it wasn't relevent to this article (but I'm sure it'll be welcome at the article for "Twilight"). Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "A vampiric alien is a recurring idea in science fiction television series..." and the following paragraph: I'm vaguely worried by this, as it looks like synthesis; do sources about this episode make these comparisons, or is it just a fairly random list? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The Muir source actually does - it specifically mentions the Babylon 5 episode as well as "The Man Trap". Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaning Support with a heavy copy-editing disclaimer: I'm pretty happy with this now, and think it meets the FA criteria. I have one point above but I've reached the end of the article and there are no other major issues other than the vampire point. I should point out though that I've copy-edited this quite heavily now, which may make my support slightly questionable; therefore I'd like to wait for a few more eyes before I switch to full support. Otherwise, I think this is a pretty comprehensive account of this episode. I'll have another look through and if no-one gets to the source review I'll look at that too. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "the last of his kind": Did Kirk refer to the creature as male at this point?
  • Corrected to "its kind. Miyagawa (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "he hated the work": What work?
  • I've changed this to specifically say the music created for "The Man Trap". Miyagawa (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Support, although I have a few comments that might be worth looking into. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • We repeatedly refer to "The Original Series" in areas of the article discussing the events of the 1960s, but of course the show would not gain this moniker until several decades later; should we be using it, or should we just use "Star Trek"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It is just easier to use The Original Series to differentiate from the franchise in it's entirety. It isn't what it was called at the time, but it is what it is referred to as now. Miyagawa (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we get an image of the alien for "The creature" section? It would probably be under copyright, but I think that we could find an appropriate fair usage license in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll get a fair use image added. Miyagawa (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also - there is actually a publicity photo from the time of Kirk and the creature, which we would be able to use if we could get access to an original copy to ensure there were no copyright markings on it (none of the others seen from this period have them). No publicity photos of Star Trek from this period had their copyright renewed, and so they're all out of copyright. But we've only been uploading the ones to commons that we can definitively prove this. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Further update - was in the process of uploading a fair use shot to EnWiki and it said that the file name was already in use on Commons. So I went and checked what was being called "Salt Vampire" there and it turns out someone has done a rather good full length drawing of the creature and added it to Commons. So I've added that instead. Miyagawa (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- unless I missed them we need reviews for image licensing and source formatting/reliability (Sarastro1 could be prepared to volunteer for the latter; you can list a request for the former at the top of WT:FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Source Review: Spot-checks not done. All sourcing looks to be reliable and of a suitable high quality. All formatting looks correct. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No Me Queda Más[edit]

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a song recorded by American Tejano music singer Selena for her last fully recorded album before she was shot and killed a year later. This song holds very dear to me as it brings back nostalgic memories of my mother while growing up. I've made a major overhaul a few months ago and updated the article and subsequently asked the GOCE to copy-edit it. After that, I re-read the article a few times in the weeks following the c/e to make sure the article is indeed ready to be nominated at FAC. I hope you guys enjoy reading the article as much as I had writing it. Best – jona ✉ 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cartoon network freak[edit]

@AJona1992: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:No_Me_Queda_Mas.ogg: FUR for this article should be expanded
  • File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg: FUR does not adequately explained why it is necessary to include this image - what information is it intended to convey? Needs expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I added the album cover FUR template to the cover art that provides a more understanding than the previous method used, while also expanding the sound file with additional information that may had been missing. Thanks again for your comments – jona ✉ 12:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, just the second point remaining. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I took another jab at it and tried it in my own words, I hope that my explanation for the purpose of the cover art has fully satisfied your concerns. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Er...jona, you're editing the fair-use image that I didn't have concerns with. File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg is the one at issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that :/ I have removed the image and tagged it orphaned for deletion as it does not convey any necessary information the reader can gather without reading the article; the caption was addressing the singer's dress which did not provide any value to reader. – jona ✉ 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from EditorE[edit]

OK. The article looks pretty good from a quick scan through, but after looking at a few parts of it a little more, I have a few comments:

  • I'm not so fond of how the Billboard.biz citations are formatted. Billboard.biz is still Billboard magazine, and it is published by Prometheus Global Media. The publisher for these sources are missing in the cites, and should be added. Billboard.biz should also be changed to Billboard.biz.
  • Done
  • The Alt description for the cover is decent, but not perfect. It should include a mention or the background and that the photo Selena is in is covered by a frame and is titled. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Done
  • I'm also gonna have to be picky with the English, since this is, after, a FA nomination. Starting with the lead, you need to put the period in the quote. In this case, its the quote of "nothing but happiness"
  • Done
  • "children's singing competition" Did the source specify which competition? If it did, the name of the competition should be added.
  • Added
  • The infoboxes and charts lists for two of the cover versions of the song are unnecessary. Since there isn't a lot of chart peaks that the cover versions, they should be removed and any bit of commericial performance info should be handled by the prose. The subsections are also unneeded in this case, given that there's not a lot of info on both covers.
  • Done
  • The year-end and all-time chart lists needs to be scoped.
  • Done

editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@EditorE: Thank you for your comments, I have fixed all issues. – jona ✉ 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@EditorE: Have I satisfied your concerns above? – jona ✉ 14:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, but I might still have more, so stay tuned. editorEهեইдအ😎 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Great, looking forward to it. Best – jona ✉ 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by DivaKnockouts[edit]

  • @DivaKnockouts: Thanks for your review, I have fixed all issues. Best – jona ✉ 14:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Great job on the article. DivaKnockouts 18:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by magiciandude[edit]

  • @Magiciandude: Thank you Erick for your comments, I have fixed all issues. Best – jona ✉ 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed you have, support. Great job! Erick (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 275 (Michigan)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a highway in Michigan, as most of my nominations are. However, this one is special. Depending on which government agency you ask, you'll get different answers at how long this one is. Additionally, it has some special history related to a cancelled northern segment that was partially revived under a different highway designation. Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria, even with the changes made since then. Dough4872 00:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Will211[edit]

Just peeking in, I was looking at sources and reference number 12 comes up with a 404 error, so that will need to be fixed. Will211|Chatter 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Will211: thanks for that. Archived link added, so that's good to go now. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'll get to reviewing this article within this week. Disclaimers: I'm not American, I don't edit road articles, and I hope you'll check out my own FAC. starship.paint ~ KO 02:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Imzadi1979: - Why did you consider my edits as bad linking practices? As a non-American editor, these Wiki-links would have been greatly useful. Plus another revert. Per WP:REPEATLINK, it is okay to link at the first occurrence after the lead. starship.paint ~ KO 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For Exit list, the reference/link provided seems to be insufficient, in the sense that it doesn't link to the I-275.
  • For the Bike trail infobox, Trailheads 16 along improved trail north of I-94 8 along unrefurbished trail south of I-94 is unsourced.
  • Also, what bikes are the bike trail intended for, bicycles, motorbikes? It should be the former based on reference 12. Trail Use: Cycling - Trails, Hiking, In-Line Skating, Jogging, X-C Skiing This could be added to the infobox - place "biking" with "cycling", the common term.
    • @Starship.paint: it is unnecessary, and bad form, to link to "US" in that first sentence. It's such a general topic that linking to it is normally WP:OVERLINKing. Even linking to the more specific topic of "US state" is still not a good idea when we can point our readers directly to the most specific topic, "Michigan", which is already linked. Given the title of the article, and the other mentions of that specific state already present, we don't need to display it when linking to the county name lower in the article. And lastly, "I-75" redirects to a national-level article instead of the state-level (and frankly higher quality) article on Michigan's segment of Interstate 75.

      As for the next reversion, the clarification attempt falls flat by omitting part of the township name. (Berlin is a separate location on the western side of the Lower Peninsula was renamed to Marne during WWI.) In short, your edits did not actually improve the text.

    • As for the exit list, that mapping source can't point to any specific highway, yet it's been used in nearly 30 other FAs on Michigan's highways without issue.
    • I've copied the footnote from the body text over.
    • In American English, "bike trail" itself implies bicycles, not motorcycles. The latter have to use the same roadways as cars unless they're "dirt bikes" that use "ORV trails" (off-road vehicle trails). As for "biking" in American English, it's synonymous with "cycling", so no change is necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Heffernan v. City of Paterson[edit]

Nominator(s): Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that employees are protected in this situation. I'd also like to acknowledge Daniel Case, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree for all their efforts in getting the article to this point. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "A line of cases going back to 1968's Pickering v. Board of Education holding that the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech permit public employees to speak out on matters of public concern, even criticizing their employers, as long as they do not do so disruptively.": Something's wrong there.
As the writer of that sentence, how so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Where's the verb? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Actually, I ultimately decided to move those sentences to the "legal background" section, where I think they belonged (once we get to Heffernan's case, we don't need details of a precedent unless they are specifically discussed by a judge to distinguish it from the instant one). And I did some prose-tightening as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support from Notecardforfree[edit]

First and foremost, I want to apologize to Wugapodes for not posting this review sooner. I completed DYK and GA reviews for this article, and I am very happy to see that it was nominated for FA status. I think this article is very close to satisfying the FA criteria, but I have a few recommendations for improvements:

  • In the "Legal background" section, for the sentence that begins "These protections not only prohibit the government ...." I think you should include a citation at the end of the sentence. Although the assertions in this sentence are unlikely to be challenged, the incorporation doctrine has been the subject of substantial debate in academia (see, e.g., this Yale Law Journal article), and I think it is generally good practice to provide attribution to any idea or concept that you found elsewhere.
I think I addressed this? Take a look and make sure. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Thanks for adding this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the legal background section, I would consider creating separate subsections for (1) the discussion of the first amendment and cases; and (2) the discussion of section 1983.
I'm hesitant to do this because the current discussion of section 1983 is only one paragraph and I think subheadings for a singular paragraph are overkill (the TOC quickly becomes overwhelmed). If by this you mean to expand the discussion, then that's another matter. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, after thinking this over a little further I think this is fine the way it is. The arrangement of the paragraphs gives this section a nice flow; I am generally biased toward including more section headings (rather than fewer), but I think this section is good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • When discussing the majority and dissenting opinions, make sure all descriptions are in the past tense (the Justices made the arguments when the opinions were published; they are not currently making those arguments at this very moment).
I think I have corrected the problem with the tense. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This section looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • At some point in the "Opinion of the Court" section, you should explain that the case was remanded to the Third Circuit for further proceedings.
Wow, duh. Added. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For the citation to the slip opinion, is there a reason why you provide a link to the Justia page for the article rather than the PDF of slip opinion? I would recommend linking the citation to the PDF of the slip opinion, since errors occasionally occur when articles are posted on Justia. In a few years, when the case is published in the United States Reports, we will need to update citations to the version that appears in the U.S. Reports, but we son't need to worry about this now.
Yes, the citation is produced by {{ussc}} which links to the Justia text by default. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. In that case, I would leave it as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Are the sources written by Trelease, and Blum & Urbonya books? If yes, these citations should use smallcaps (see this guide).
Fixed. The guide you linked said to put the whole citation in small caps, but that seemed weird to me, and the guide I looked at only said to put the title in small caps. I coded {{bluebook book}} to only put the title in small caps, but if that's incorrect let me know and I can adjust it. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen it done both ways (and I have been inconsistent in my own writing). However, most law reviews will place an author's name in smallcaps. See, for example, footnote 6 in this article and footnote 13 in this article as examples where the author's name is in small caps (cf. citations to chapters with separate authors, such as the citation to Bennett in footnote 13 of this article). For the purposes of this article and this reivew, I think it is okay to only place the book title in smallcaps. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Was the Hudson article published in a journal (called First Reports)? If yes, the name and volume of the journal should be included in the citation.
Fixed. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if any of these comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your fantastic work with this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Addressed all of them. I have addressed of them one needs your attention and one might? The two citation problems I will look into, I think it's a problem with the citation template I wrote so I need to take a closer look in the morning. The first item on adding a citation will likewise take a day or two; I need to look at the sources again because I forget where I got it (if I got it? a number of people helped on this and I forget what I wrote and what others wrote). And don't apologize for the time, there's no deadline and the fact that you took the time to, again, read through the article and give feedback more than makes up for any perceived delay. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the citations. They were apparently manually written rather than using a template (probably because the template didn't exist until a few minutes ago) which explains the problems. They should be fixed now. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Many thanks for your excellent work. I am proud to give this nomination my full support. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

F.C. United of Manchester[edit]

Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a supporter-owned, semi-professional, non-league football club based in Manchester, England. Founded in 2005 by Manchester United fans, F.C. United currently play somewhat entertaining football at level six of the English football pyramid. Since their foundation, F.C. United have been the subject of many a newspaper articles, television programmes and a couple of books and documentaries, and are one of the most known non-league clubs in England.

I'm moving forward with this nomination hoping to get the article promoted to FA status in time for the 11th anniversary of the club's first ever match on 16 July. After a considerable amount of work I put into the article over the last few months, I feel it meets all FA criteria, and I look forward to listening to your suggestions and comments. Thanks, everyone. odder (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

I read this at peer review and was happy with alot of it. More comments: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015, ready for the 2015–16 season. - makes it sound like the 2015–16 season hasn't happened yet. Might be better as "United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015 and was used for the 2015–16 season"
Sentence 2 and 3 in the Formation section both begin with, "Although.."

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cas, I've now reworded that paragraph to avoid this unfortunate repetition. I also fixed the sentence on the opening of the ground, so both issues should now be fixed. odder (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro[edit]

Comment: I hope to give this a full review, but a quick glance through at the sourcing gave me a few concerns. Here are a few sourcing questions, but this isn't an exhaustive list and there could be a few other issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The book by Robert Brady appears to be self published according to Google. What makes it reliable?
    • How do you know it's a self-published book? I own a copy, and I can't tell if it's been self-published or not. The book—one of only three books written specifically about F.C. United—is reliable because it was written by a member of the club's steering group (or, "steering committee", as some call it), which was the group that worked on actually creating the club, including its registration with the Football Association, hiring the manager, signing players—everything that needed to be done to get the club off the ground before the inauguaral members' meeting on 5 July 2005. When it comes to facts about F.C. United's beginnings, and in particular the events of May 2005, it doesn't come more direct than that. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Says on Google Books here that he was the author and publisher. However, in the circumstances, I think this would be fine to use. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We have the Sunday Mirror as a source, which I think is questionable as a RS (see WP:PUS)
    • This is a tough one, as the article was published in February 2005, and as far as I am aware is the only printed source that covered the idea suggesting the formation of F.C. United. The idea was originally proposed in an article published in Red Issue, a Manchester United fanzine, and was then subsequently reported on in that Sunday Mirror piece, which I accessed through the news database Newsbank at a library. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, I really think we could do with a better source though. The Sunday Mirror is frowned upon. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any other source confirming the name of the author of that original Red Issue piece, so I ended up removing it, and referenced the date of that article and the fact that the idea was originally floated during the attempted Murdoch takeover to an article published in the journal Soccer & Society. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What makes "The Set Pieces" a reliable website?
    • They are an award-winning football blog (1 and 2 although the website itself doesn't look much like a blog). They're also part of the Guardian Sport Network and are regularly featured on the Guardian's website, but if that's not enough then I guess I'll see if I can replace this reference with something else. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Blogs are a little questionable unless by a recognised authority, I believe. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Same as above; I couldn't find any sources confirming the identity of that Red Issue writer, so I removed it and used a journal article instead. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 57 of the 140 sources are to fc-utd.co.uk, the club's own website. This seems a very high proportion to me, and we should not be using the subject of the article to provide so much information on itself
    • Some of these references are used to provide the score, date or venue of particular matches; I'll try to replace them with outside sources, but I'm afraid it's probably mostly going to be the Manchester Evening News. The article is already using MEN materials 19 times at this moment, so I'm not sure if this isn't going to be a problem. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I think MEN would be better for at least some of these; that would be better than using the club's own site. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I got that number down to 39 (out of 136) by replacing news pieces (updates) from F.C. United's website to articles published in the MEN; I tried to link to on-line versions where available, but some of those articles apparently never made it to the MEN's website, in which case I used the news database Newsbank which I can access as a reader at the Manchester City Council Libraries. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 25 seems to go to an error page; and what makes North West Counties Football League reliable?
    • You might need to try again, as that website appears to be having temporary issues. It certainly works for me. And as what makes the North West Counties Football League reliable, well… it's the North West Counties Football League, the organisation that runs the league that F.C. United were first accepted into, all the way back in 2005-06. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What is Mancunian Matters, and what makes it reliable?
    • It's a local on-line newspaper (news website) co-published by News Associates (Manchester branch), which apparently is the second-best sports journalism training centre in the whole of the United Kingdom (never knew that). odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We have a lot of local press coverage, which is fine, and a few BBC items. Is there nothing in the sporting/football press about the club that could be included Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • As F.C. United are a semi-professional, non-league club, there is a very limited fotballing/sports coverage available apart from local papers, and in particular apart from the Manchester Evening News, Manchester's most popular daily paper. The article does include a few references to FourFourTwo, one each from ESPN, the Non-League Football Paper, and a few references to general British press such as the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, and the Guardian (which due to its past has a particular interest in all things Mancunian).
In any case, @Sarastro1, thank you so much for such a detailed review of the sources used. It's super helpful, and I will try to fix the issues that you pointed out. Due to work and other Wikimedia commitments this is likely to take some time, though; I expect to be able to work on this tomorrow (Tuesday) evening as well as Wednesday, and will update you once I'm done. Please do feel free to mention other issues that you find, and thanks again for your work on this, really appreciate the feedback. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: I think I've now fixed all the outstanding issues; I also used this opportunity to replace some other low-quality sources, so referencing should be a bit better now. Are there any other problems that you can see? Thanks, odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

More comments: I think this looks in reasonable shape overall, but could stand a little tightening. A few points from the lead to begin with. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • "United entered the North West Counties Football League Division Two in their inaugural season. They achieved three consecutive promotions in the first three years of their existence and were promoted for a fourth time to compete in the National League North for the 2015–16 season": Is it worth saying what tier they begun at, to give some contrast?
This is mentioned in #North West Counties years (2005–07). odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "In cup competitions, F.C. United reached the second round of the FA Cup during the 2010–11 season and the first round during the 2015–16 season. They reached the fourth round of the FA Trophy during the 2014–15 season and the third round of the FA Vase during the 2006–07 season.": I know what we are trying to do here, but it's a little bit of a list as it stands. We could either limit this to mentioning their best results in the cups, or make more of their achievements. For example, it is not immediately obvious to a non-UK football person that reaching the first round of a competition is actually an achievement, and involves winning games. I think I prefer the first option.
I think you're right; I guess I'll remove the 2006-07 FA Vase and the FA Cup 2015-16 results, as reaching both FA Cup second round and FA Trophy fourth round are bigger achievements than that. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This is done. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The club shared Gigg Lane with Bury until 2014 and in the 2014–15 season Bower Fold and the Tameside Stadium with Stalybridge Celtic and Curzon Ashton respectively. F.C. United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015.": Again, we are getting list-y here; perhaps cut to "After initially sharing grounds with other clubs, F.C. United opened their own ground..." etc.
Nice catch. I'll try to shorten this a bit. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This has been addressed in the meantime. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The lead is a little light. Rather than list grounds and Cup results, we need a brief summary of each of the main sections in the main body. I would imagine Supporters, Organisation and Criticism (even if there is no longer a criticism section!) need a little more. WP:LEAD says somewhere that we need a summary of all the main content in the lead.
    • This has been already mentioned during the article's peer review, and while I agree that a short summary of the Supporters and Organisation sections might be necessary—and I'll happily do that—I object to the inclusion of Criticism in the lead. I have read, re-read and then read again all featured English football club articles, and none of them mention any criticism in their respective leads. F.C. United's article is already unique in even mentioning the criticism (given the circumstances around the club's formation I guess it's fair play), however I think that including this in the lead would be pushing it a bit too far. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This hasn't been done. I added a short summary of the Supporters and Organisation sections—one sentence each—to the lead but I haven't summarised the Criticism section and I'm not planning on doing so for the reasons outlined above. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like the prose could stand a little tightening in places in the main body. I'll take a look, and if you have no objections I'll copy-edit directly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: No objections whatsoever, and thank you for the edits you've already made. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

History:

  • "Although the fans had various reasons for their dissatisfaction": Can we list at least a couple of these?
    • There exists a whole variety of sources mentioning those—particularly the early Manchester Evening News articles about F.C. United, mostly from May-August 2005 and I could certainly cite them, however see below for my reasoning as to why I haven't done that yet. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just doing a quick spot check of ref 3 and 4 gave two references to AFC Wimbledon. Do we need to mention this as some sort of inspiration/precedent?
    • AFC Wimbledon officials provided F.C United's steering committee with a lot of help in the early days, and Wimbledon's chairman was actually present at the Apollo Theatre; this is mentioned in a lot of sources, including Brady's book. I never covered this in the article as it felt to me as being too small a detail as compared to the bigger picture, but including this is certainly doable. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we are missing a little detail about the public meeting; the Guardian says that "At those meetings, £100,000 was pledged and a name selected by founder members"
    • I think there is a bit of a confusion here. The name that this passage refers to is "F.C. United"; it was originally suggested in that breakthourgh Red Issue piece, and then refused by the FA for being too ambigous. The name "F.C. United of Manchester" was selected by people who have pledged money to the club—as this was even before the club's inaugural member's meeting which only happened on 5 July—through the internet and the post rather than during the two public meetings at the Central Hall and at the Apollo Theatre. The £100,000 that is being referred to also was pledged in a variety of ways, including through the post, the internet, over the phone, etc., and not just during the meetings. But overall, I think this is too detailed to be included in this article per WP:DETAIL. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "and "Newton Heath United"": I think this name at least warrants more explanation.
    • See below. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Christopher Porter (ref 12) appears to be a thesis; what makes it a RS?
    • According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP PhD theses can be used if they're cited in literature, as Porter's thesis has been (Peter Kennedy, David Kennedy, "Football in Neo-Liberal Times: A Marxist Perspective on the European Football Industry", ISBN 9781317576266; Simon Gwyn Roberts, "Sport, Media and Regional Identity", ISBN 9781443886666).
  • "During F.C. United's formation, the owners of Leigh RMI offered to merge the two clubs, but United refused the offer as they believed that taking over an existing club would be hypocritical, given the manner in which F.C. United were formed.": This does not quite match the source, which says the clubs considered merging but decided against it. Also, the hypocritical suggestion came from the Chairman of the Leigh RMI supporter's club.
    • As far as I am aware, the offer was rejected by F.C. United, however I agree that this isn't what the source say and I will reword it. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This is now done. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Instead, F.C. United's first game was a friendly match against Leigh RMI": Instead does not quite work here. Instead of what? Merging? But that's not what the source says in ref 18; that says it was more of a thank you for Leigh's support and to help that club's finances.
    • I agree; it doesn't. I'll reword this. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick note that this has now been taken care of. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we're a bit light overall on the formation of the club. It goes from an idea by fans, to an idea in a fanzine, to a fully formed club very, very quickly. Who were the guiding figures? Who organised the meetings? Who sat down and said, "We're going to do this!"? Where did the money come from? I just think we need more detail here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit torn about this. During the recent peer review, I have considerably shortened the history section (covering the actual football history of the club) and expanded the formation sub-section; I think the article is quite balanced as is now. I could certainly provide some of the information that you mention—such as names of the steering committee, name of the Club's first secretary; but then not all of them as there is a very limited number of reliable sources covering the quite chaotic formation of the club—however I'm worried that it would lead to the formation section outgrowing the rest of the article. Same for the inclusion of Wimbledon's help, the name Newton Heath United, and others. Is this detail necessary and proper in this kind of general article? For instance, Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Arsenal F.C. and Aston Villa F.C., all curent FAs about English football clubs, provide only one sentence about the actual formation of their clubs, and go into detail in their respective history articles, which seems to be the standard approach. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
      • My view, for what it's worth, is that the article is currently too sparse. Probably the most noteworthy aspect to the club so far has been their formation and the reasons for it. This requires more I think. As for concerns about the formation section growing too large, it is not at the moment. It's about a third of the history section, and I think it could be longer. Comparing FC United of Manchester to Manchester, Liverpool or Arsenal is hardly appropriate as those clubs have a much longer history and focusing on their formation would be a little undue. If there was ever a fear that the article was growing too long, the formation section could be spun out into its own article. Perhaps the best comparable article would be AFC Wimbledon, which has a very tight, very focused formation section (and a rather well-written one at that) but also an article (Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes) which covers the whole story, including formation of the new club. I don't think the Glazer ownership article covers the formation of FC United of Manchester much at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I just found this. I don't think we use it at the moment, but there's a lot of early detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you. The article actually does not introduce any new information that isn't already covered in the article, however it does provide a lot of detail on the sums and organisations that provided funding for Broadhurst Park, so I have now added that piece as a reference there. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

2005-07:

  • Were they promoted as Champions in their first season? I can't quite check the reference as the webarchive link simply goes to a main page for the MEN.
    • I'm not sure why you would click on the archive link as the link to the actual article is live; in any case, both the original article and the archive work for me without any problems. odder (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "were promoted to the Northern Premier League Division One North after beating Ramsbottom United.": As written, this looks like they won one game and were promoted.
    • This isn't what the sentence says; the full sentence says after a successful season (…) F.C. United were promoted (…) after beating Ramsbottom; I think the meaning of the sentence is quite clear. odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "They confirmed their promotion with a 7–1 win over Atherton Laburnum Rovers on 18 April 2007,": Hang on, we just said they were promoted after beating Ramsbottom...
    • I've now reworded this to say "they secured their second successive league title with a 7–1 win…". odder (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Why did they not play in the FA Cup until 07-08? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Indopug[edit]

Comment per WP:NPOV, sections such as "Criticism" tend to act as POV dumps and content forks. I think this article doesn't need such a section at all and its contents can be easily moved elsewhere. For eg, the Fergie critique to Formation, and the stuff about the club allegedly betraying its principles to Organisation (where said principles are laid out) and Supporters as appropriate.—indopug (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@indopug: Thanks for the comment. Can you explain exactly what you have in mind when saying "POV dumps" and "content forks"? WP:NPOV#Article structure says that no rules prohibit particular article structures as long as the overall presentation is broadly neutral, and I think both the article as a whole as well as the Criticism section specifically are indeed broadly neutral. I'm also a little bit confused about your saying that this article doesn't need such a section at all. I only expanded this section about two weeks ago after it was suggested during the article's third peer review that I do so, and I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place here… odder (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I find indopug to be generally correct on these things. By POV dump, he means any time someone passes a comment in the real world, someone slaps it in the criticism section. And I think I agree that the content in the criticism section could be split. It certainly needs to be kept, but perhaps not in its own section. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Jack Verge[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkyCanute (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Jack Verge, an Australian international rugby player who died while on active service in the Gallipoli Campaign in WWI. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments. A minor point: I'm not sure if the military history tag makes sense on this article. I've asked the question at WT:MIL#Jack_Verge. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Hawkeye and Nikki disagree, so the tag is probably fine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "a treat to witness" (x2): See WP:INTEXT. Anything in quote marks needs to be attributed in the text ... or paraphrased, or deleted, which would probably be better here.
  • "the second XI", "taking two for 22": Articles that pass FAC generally show up for one day at WP:TFA, and a summary of the article will be the first thing that 10 million readers will see that day. Most of those who go on to read the article won't know what you're talking about. Be kind to your readers.
  • "Slow bowler.": Not a sentence. Combine and link it.
  • "Blarney", "Spragg", "Wickham": I'm guessing these are last names. Do you know the first names?
  • No, Yes, Yes. Added to first encounter plus wikilink. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "played a game at full back ...": INTEXT.
  • I got about halfway through it, down to 1904 season. I may come back and support on prose, later. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Your edits all look good. I haven't been able to find out what "threequarter Blarney" means. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I've reworked this sentence; threequarter is wikilinked earlier in the section. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Verge took the catch at pace and ran for the corner but was pushed into touch", "threequarter C.": Kindness needed.
  • My guess is other reviewers are going to want you to trim some details and game commentary. That's not my department, though.
  • Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Jack_Verge.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:NSW_Officers_1914.jpg
  • File:1904_Lions_in_NZ.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the creator is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago

Also a general note on sources while I'm here: NLA's "Wikipedia" citation results in a lot of junk data in the output - the location and date range held aren't part of the newspaper name, and the location of the original publication isn't the same as the location of the "publishing" library. These will need tidying. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've started on this, but it's soul-destroying, so I'll come back and finish later. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
All cleared up now. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments: I only looked superficially at this stage, but over all it looks pretty good. Rugby isn't my game, though, so not sure I can accurately gauge the content. I have the following suggestions (all very minor): AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, AustralianRupert. I've made a few quick edits and will come back and complete. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • per MOS:ALLCAPS the titles of the newspaper articles such as "FIRST GRADE TEAMS" should be "First Grade Teams" or "First grade teams"
  • I think a little more context could be added to the Military service section, for instance you could mention what war he fought in, and who the forces at Gallipoli were fighting against, and why they were sent there (it probably wouldn't need much more than a short sentence or two in this regard).
  • perhaps mention that the light horse units were sent as reinforcements after the initial landing
  • "threequarter — and captain — Lonnie Spragg": per WP:DASH the emdashes should not be spaced here;
  • inconsistent initials, compare: "C. A. Verge" v "AJ McKenzie"
  • "England aboard the RMS Mongolia on 25 May 1907": --> RMS Mongolia

Comments. Not a regular FACer and don't follow rugby that closely, but this caught my eye for some reason.

  • "against a touring British Isles team, in Sydney, on 2 July 1904" wouldn't bother with that first comma, don't think you'd take a pause there
  • Done a bit of a copyedit here. No way he could have won both his caps on one day! FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "relatively light compared with other contenders for his position" were there really people contending for his position? Maybe "contemporaries"? ... Ah, just read further on, makes more sense now, but wouldn't be opposed to tacking on something like "in the NSW and Australian team"
  • I don't feel this is really necessary. Why wouldn't there be contenders for fullback? And indeed there were. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've muddled myself on this one, should have just removed it once I'd read further. Please disregard. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not clear that St Paul's College is a college at USyd, sounds almost like it's a later institution he studied at
  • Yes. I've revised this sentence. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I like the change, only quibble is should it be "residing at" rather than "resident at"? I'm honestly not sure. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "of the First Australian Imperial Force in October 1914 attached to the" I'd have a comma before attached
  • "He passed his first year of medicine in 1901" is this really necessary? I'd just cut it down to "He graduated in 1904."
  • "University 2 against Balmain 2" is "2" the standard form in rugby? I would have assumed reserves/seconds or even "II"
  • I believe standard practice is to link terms like runs and wickets on first usage because they can be confusing to non-Commonwealth readers
  • I will go through and make sure it's done. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Inter-State" shouldn't be capitalised
  • "at the University Oval, Sydney" don't think "the" is correct there
  • "inside the Queensland 25" any way this can be reworded to be more universal? Something like "within 25 yards(?) of the Queensland goal line"
  • "chased fast after it" would change "fast" to "quickly" (or similar)
  • I think I was reading it as an adjective when it's actually being used as an adverb. For some reason it still sounds a little clunky to my ears, but I have nothing reasonable to back that feeling up with, so leave it as you think is best. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The score at the break was 4–3" sorry, but in whose favour?
  • "Wickham dropped a goal" isn't "kicked a drop goal" the more common language?
  • Are there relevant links for South Sydney and Western Suburbs by any chance?
    • Guess not, that's OK. As a complete aside, it would be fascinating if someone ever wrote late 19th/early 20th century rugby clubs in Sydney in some depth. I think with most RL clubs claiming 1908 as their formation a lot of that earlier history has gone missing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I had a bit of a nosey around this topic last year. There's a lot of material in the NLA digital archives, if you're prepared to hack your way through it, and piece it all together article by article. It was a sidetrack for me, as I'm really focussed on the rugby players KIA in WWI, at the moment. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "So the selectors for NSW" the "so" is unnecessary
  • "Verge's good game" any other word we can use instead of "good"? It doesn't tell the reader a lot
    • I was going to harp on this, but having glanced at the source I see they said he was "good" as well, so I think this can stay as is. I blame a teacher I once had who used to get stuck into me every time I used "good" or "nice" in my writing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "for its part," doesn't add anything, should be removed
  • Changed to "in contrast", which is the point I'm making. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, gotcha. Makes sense to me now. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "They were proving very quick" I'd add "to be" between proving and quick, sounds a bit odd otehrwise
  • "dominated by the home team, with Britain forced to defend, and prevented Australia from scoring" would change it to something like "dominated by the home team; Britain were forced to defend, and prevented Australia from scoring"
  • "Verge's kicking, on this occasion, was good" again, not sure "good" gives us much, would prefer something like "Verge kicked well on this occasion, according to Joe Bloggs/whatever newspaper"
  • "Verge did not play in the third test but returned to play for the University team" why did he not play in the third test? Surely he didn't prefer to play at a lower level instead
  • "Both Dr A Verge, as he was then styled in the match lists" seems like puffery, I'd reword to simply "Both Verge"
  • All uses of "Dr" should be removed per MOS:DOCTOR
  • "which the home side won 21–0 easily"--> "which the home side won easily, 21–0"
  • "brought in at five-eighths" isn't it five-eighth?
  • Yes it is, and I've added a link too. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Although Otago again came away the winners, 6–3, no points were scored in the first half, although the visitors came close to getting a try but were held up on the line." this reads oddly, I'd go with "No points were scored in the first half, although the visitors came close to getting a try but were held up on the line. Otago scored (maybe not the right word) 6–3 in the second half to again come away winners."
  • "Verge was attached to the 1st Australian Division, landing on 20 May, just after the failed Turkish attack on Anzac Cove" rather than running on with it, I'd split this into two sentences "Verge was attached to the 1st Australian Division. They landed on 20 May, just after the failed Turkish attack on Anzac Cove"

I'm probably being pedantic on something, feel free to disagree with anything. Overall I think it's a really nice article, most of these are very minor quibbles. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Jenks24, thanks very much for the review. I hope you don't mind if I take a few days to respond, while we digest real world events here in the UK. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries, take as long as you need. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for going through it in so much detail, Jenks24. Good and fair comments, and I've made a number of revisions. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your changes, FunkyCanute, and I agree with the ones you've left (see further responses in line above). Looking through the sources, I thought I'd make a few comments about those too, if that's alright. For reference I'm talking about this revision. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • #2 needs an access date
  • #3 no page number
  • #5 no page number
  • #12 is there something more we can give here about how you accessed this (e.g. website/URL?), I'm assuming you didn't go in person but could be wrong
  • #34, #36 no page number, no access date
  • #50 what's with the "(2623)", you don't have it for the other Otago Witness refs
  • #54 seems like a stray comma after the volume number
  • #71 no access date
  • #74 same thing with #50
  • #76, #77, #78 no page number, no access date
  • #79, #80 no access date
  • biblio: use location for both or neither

Again, only minor things. Referencing on the whole was solid, all to reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Jenks24, thanks, and all done. And I've added a couple of comments further up. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. I've just had another re-read of the article and everything looks in order to me, so I'm happy to support. For the benefit of the FAC delegates, I should say I haven't looked at any image licensing and haven't checked for close paraphrasing. But everything else (well written, comprehensive without being overly detailed, consistent citations, etc.) I'm happy to support on. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thank you! FunkyCanute (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments –

  • In the rugby career section, would be it possible to add first names for the other players, when available? For example, we have an article on John Maund, who might be the player we call Maund here.
  • The British Isles tour of Australia: The last paragraph is a bit stubby at one sentence. Would it be possible to merge it with the previous paragraph?
  • End of rugby career: Per MOS:DOCTOR, the use of "Dr" at the start of the last paragraph is a style violation. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Impala[edit]

Nominator(s): Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a graceful antelope. The article was promoted to GA status in 2014, and now nominate it for FA status after expanding it further using better sources. Thanks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Checkingfax[edit]

  • Hi, Sainsf. I gave it a runthrough and made some minor edits to smooth it out functionality/MoS-wise.
  • I would suggest adding alt-text to images requiring it.

I will be happy to do another runthrough and make an !vote after more comments come in. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your comments and efficient edits. I tried to add proper alt-text here, please check. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sainsf. I am not good at creating alt-text for images. Maybe Graham87 can take a look at them for you. I will say that two of them merely repeat the caption, and that is not helpful, so the text of those two can be deleted for now. You do not have to remove the whole parameter, just the text portion. That way somebody can see that it needs filling in (leave alt=). I will take a shot and say you did a pretty good job of not being redundant in your alt-text. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will delete them for now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, they sound pretty good. Thanks for adding them. Graham87 08:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax, care to !vote? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sainsf.
  • I am not a fan of sections that start with images. The default is for images to float right and I usually stick with the default unless there is a way to move an image down a paragraph and float it to the left. Many times I am able to re-juggle images in a big article and avoid sections starting off with images. This Impala article has some two paragraph sections that may be too short to move an image down, justify it left, and not have it impact the following section. Give it some thought and ping me back. I will not ding you for whatever you decide is best. I do feel that sections with images as their first content breaks up the flow of reading an article. I have no problem with all images being right floated if that is a solution in an article. This article has enough real estate to allow some left floating without walking on section headings. I love the article and its current presentation. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
On this point, it is entirely optional where an image is placed in the beginning of a section. There was a guideline, but it has long been removed.[11] FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. No rigid rule about that.
  • Is there an inconsistency with number ranges in a case like this? (there may be others): 24 to 48 hours, and occurs every 12–29 days
  • I don't think consistency is mandatory in that, I like some variation and have never been advised against doing this.
  • I feel that at least the first use of the {{convert}} template should use abbr=off for each type of unit (metres, hectares, kilogram, etc.)
  • Not sure if it is necessary, I never do in any of my articles... the meaning is rather apparent.
  • Since there is no word limit I feel percent should always be spelled out instead of using % – except in infoboxes, tables, etc.
  • Once again either can be used, taking care that either "%" or "percent" is said.

I like the use of the {{clade}} template. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
FA Toolbox:

Alt text: See this – top two images would benefit

Not sure how to add alt text in infobox, and what to write for the range map.

Citation bot: Added |year=2005[12]
Disambig links: 2 links still need DAB[13] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Edit count: ? (not sure what we are on the look out for here)
External links: No dead links found
Peer review: Reports two links needing DAB[14] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Redirects: 1 marked invalid[15] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Reflinks: Pass
Dates used consistently: Pass
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Addressed. Sorry for the late response, busy with GA Cup. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Support – {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • remove the pronunciation key from the lead
Someone had attached a "pronunciation?" tag there when I began work on the article. That's why I added it.
  • change "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, only on males..." to "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, that are only on males..." or "The slender, lyre-shaped horns (that only occur in males)..."
Done
  • "Browsers as well as grazers..." doesn't that just mean "herbivore"?
Both are types of feeding behaviours, and in antelopes one of them generally predominates. Here we know for sure that it is a herbivore, and I wish to highlight that both ways of feeding can be observed in this antelope.
  • is the plural of impala "impala" or "impalas"?
Sources use both. And in antelope articles (like sitatunga, mountain nyala, and the FA hartebeest) I have stuck to what appears to be the singular form.
  • "An annual, three weeks-long rut toward the end of the wet season, typically in May" this is a fragment
Fixed.
  • change "aepyceros" to "Aepyceros" in the Etymology section
Done.
  • change "Known as the common impala. Occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" to "Known as the common impala, it occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" do the same for A. m. petersi
Done
  • change "...from the Pliocene of Ethiopia" to "...from the Pliocene in Ethiopia" (optional)
Seems "of" and "in" can be used interchangeably here.
References[edit]
  • ref no. 4's OCLC number is 24702472
  • ref no. 6's OCLC number is 861302215
  • ref no. 9's OCLC number is 852789105 (might want to check the all book refs for their OCLC numbers)
  • ref no. 13's OCLC number is 854973585
  • I'm stopping with the OCLC numbers. Make sure all book refs have one (any of them with an ISBN should have an OCLC)
Thanks for your comments, will look into these soon responded. But in none of my previous FACs have reviewers asked for OCLCs, are they mandatory? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure, it's just another id number for the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77: I have added OCLCs for all the book refs. I don't think it is necessary to add it, just remain consistent in whatever you use. Please continue with your comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Congratulations on another great article! Best of luck to you on your pending GA's   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will review shortly, but first, as always, could we have scientific names in the cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Great! Well, that was thing #456 I always forget, fixed now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I really like the images, but the image under diet from a zoo in some cold country seems a bit out of place among the rest. How about some wild animals grazing?[16]
  • Awesome. No idea how you come across the best image always.
  • "An alternative name for the impala is "rooibok"" From what language? Sounds Afrikaans...
  • Fixed
  • "n 1845, Swedish zoologist Carl Jakob Sundevall placed the springbok in Antidorcas, a genus of its own.[8]" Not sure why you mention this, was the springbok originally in the same genus as the impala?
  • Removed, seems it was added by mistake
  • "led palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba to consider" When?
  • Fixed
  • "According to Vrba, the impala evolved from an alcelaphine ancestor. She noted that while this ancestor has diverged at least 18 times into various morphologically different forms, the impala has continued in its basic form for at least five million years.[9][15] Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni from the Pliocene of Ethiopia." This doesn't seem to have been confirmed by genetic evidence, why go so much into detail about this theory?
  • I came only across this hypothesis when I tried to learn about its evolution. I don't think there is much outside that. If there were a better theory, I would have replaced this, but seems this should be there for now. Other sources repeat the same thing citing Vrba.
  • Not really something you have to act on I think, but per our discussion about the genus being monotypic, the extinct species Aepyceros datoadeni seems to perhaps warrant a genus article...
  • Then Antilope too may have extinct species we may not know about. And Aepyceros was perhaps never created, though this fossil species was mentioned right at the top.
  • "Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni" What are the others?
  • I can't seem to find the names of the others... this is the only one mentioned almost everywhere.
  • "The horns, strongly ridged and divergent, circular in section and hollow at the base." Seems an "are" is missing here...
  • Blooper fixed. Checking for more...
  • "Black streaks run from the buttocks" Does the source really say buttocks, and not rump or such?
  • Nothing weird about that as sources do use it, try this [17]. Any problem with the word?
  • "these glands males are most active" Glands males? What is that?
  • "classifies the impala as Least Concern" Perhaps add "overall"? Since it doesn't apply to the black-faced one, apparently...
  • Fixed
  • "is spent in feeding and resting" Spent on?
  • Fixed
  • Rut is not linked outside the intro.
  • Fixed
  • "A possible explanation for this could be that because the impala inhabits woodlands, that are considered to have a high density of ticks, unlike the other animals in the study that inhabit grasslands, the impala could have greater mass of ticks per unit area of the body surface." This sentence is rather convoluted, perhaps put some of it in parenthesis?
  • Fixed
  • "in a study, ivermectin was found to" Perhaps state that this is a form of medication.
  • Fixed
  • "Impala carefully feed on" What is meant by carefully?
  • It means they are careful in what parts of the plant they choose. Would "meticulous" be better?
Yeah, could "parts of the plant" be mentioned as well? FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm ready to support once this is dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This one! FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "A study revealed that time spent in foraging reaches a maximum of 75.5%" Percent of what? The day?
  • Fixed
  • Are the subspecies sympatric anywhere?
  • This map [18] can give an idea of the black-faced impala's distribution, though it seems wrong about the common impala. Sources don't say exactly where their ranges meet, but it seems they must meet somewhere in southern Africa.
  • Perhaps state the main difference between the subspecies in the intro, much space is given to behaviour in the intro (I'd say the kicking part is too detailed there), but not description.
  • Done
  • The male in the taxobox has very short horns compared to the one under description. is it a juvenile?
Hmm, it's a featured picture after all, I think "mature" animals are generally preferred for recognisability, but not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Hi, care to !vote? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - looks good, but did you overlook my lats point above, or has it been fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Really sorry for my awfully late reply, GA Cup is literally eating me up! I have removed "carefully" as the part following this indeed shows the care the animal takes while eating. Thanks for your support, and your help with issues Checkingfax has raised. :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Support for FA promotion. I gave it a read-through, and didn't find any significant issues. It looks to be in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and edits. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "The impala ... other impala": If you want to use "impala" as the plural, that's fine, but then it reduces readability if you use the same word to mean two different things (plural and singular mass noun) in the same sentence. In general, the article might benefit if you tried to maintain the plural or maintain the singular longer than you do. It wouldn't surprise me if other reviewers recommend "impalas" as the plural.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: Thanks for your support, edits and comments, sorry for getting to this so late. I think you refer to these lines (all I could find with two meanings):
  • The impala displays two characteristic leaps – it can jump up to 3 metres (9.8 ft), over vegetation and even other impala...
  • Impala on the periphery of the herds are generally more vigilant against predators than those feeding in the centre; a foraging impala will try to defend the patch...
  • The historical range of the impala, spanning across southern and eastern Africa, has remained intact to a great extent, although impala have disappeared from a few places...
I have tweaked these to keep only one meaning. Is that what you wished to see? Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Slug (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a song recorded by U2 and Brian Eno as part of a side project album in 1995. This is the song's third nomination for FA, as its previous nominations failed as many editors simply felt the article was "too short". Keep in mind, that the song about which the article was written was not released as a single, performed live in concert, or released on a mainstream album. As a result, it was a very obscure track released under a pseudonymn by major artists. I have noted that it is comparable in size to FAs of other lesser-known releases. The article completely details the background, inspiriation, writing/recording, and reception of the song, and I feel that is definitely warrants the status as a featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by starship.paint[edit]

  • Support. I believe the length of the article is not an issue as it is comprehensive, well-sourced and presentable. Bonus points for the pictures, a quote and the sample. starship.paint ~ KO 12:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Review
Lede
  • If Passengers is a secret pseudonym, perhaps that should be emphasized.
Infobox
  • Some discrepancies between this particle and Original Soundtracks 1. So this song was released on 6 November and the album was released on 7 November? Shouldn't they be on the same date? Also, the album says the recording for Westside Studios, London was in 1994.
  • Is there a source for the recording locations... would that be the album itself?
  • How is the genre for the song determined? I see 'experimental' appearing in the body, but not 'ambient', 'alternative' or 'rock'.
Background and recording
  • U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book - what soundtrack?
  • U2 spent time in Shinjuku, Tokyo at the end of the Zoo TV Tour in 1993, and their experience in the city influenced the recording sessions. - when were the recording sessions?
  • I believe that all the sentences until ....the bullet train in Tokyo". should be in one paragraph as they are about the album. Whereas the stuff after that is about the song.
  • By early July 1995, the band renamed the song "Seibu/Slug" - so why did the name turn out to be just Slug? Since it was never mentioned in the sources, how about inserting The song was released as "Slug", the second track on the Passengers album Original Soundtracks 1 on 7 November 1995. rephrased from the first sentence of the Reception section into the background section, before Details of the song's recording sessions were documented in Eno's 1996 book, A Year with Swollen Appendices.
Composition and lyrics
  • I thought the line "Don't want to be a slug" should be mentioned...? There should be some explanation of the title of the song, lest people like me think of the mollusc. I wiki-linked to Wiktionary since you didn't explain. Is that all right?
Personnel
Most issues have been addressed. I don't understand your concern about the intention of recording for a soundtrack. U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book. That sentence seems fine to me. What soundtrack? The soundtrack for the film - which they never ended up recording. As far as the name of the song, I could not find any source that explains why the name was changed. The closest thing I found was a source that mentions how The Edge still calls the song "Seibu", but I couldn't find a place to fit that in nor did I think it was worth mentioning. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dream out loud: LOL I was confused on what a soundtrack was, but I understand now. See two unfinished concerns above. starship.paint ~ KO 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: Thank you so much for your feedback! Out of all the FA nominations this article has had, I can easily say that your feedback has been the most constructive. I've address all the issues so far. Please let me know if you have any other comments. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dream out loud: - You're welcome, I'm heartened to hear that. There's one last issue above at the red text. The Reception section seems fine, the sourcing seems great, my review is almost done then. I don't see problems with length, content is enough for a non-single. starship.paint ~ KO 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Last issue addressed. Thanks again! –Dream out loud (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dream out loud: - one more thing I thought of. Since this is a non-single, could you mention the album's commercial success (or lack of it) in this article to get an indication of whether many people could have heard this song. Maybe mention that this was one of U2's poorest albums (according to the album article) and the album's peaks in the American, British and Australian charts as a sample. Two sentences for commercial stuff. starship.paint ~ KO 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: Thanks, I didn't want to get too detailed about the album's lack of success since the article is about the song, but I did add one sentence in the reception section. I don't think statistics are necessary so I just added a line mentioning how/why it didn't sell well. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Lyrically, it is a portrait of a "desolate soul"[1] during", and throughout: See WP:INTEXT. Quoted material has to be attributed in the text (or paraphrased, i.e. not quoted). - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the Edge": Two problems here. On WP, BritEng requires "the" in front of "guitarist", which would make it "the guitarist the Edge", which doesn't sound right. Also, one "the Edge" is fine (and it's fine in the infobox), but the constant repetition comes off as affected ... Donald Trump is sometimes known as "the Donald", but imagine how it would sound if you kept referring to him that way. "Edge" alone is listed as an acceptable name in his article, so I've switched to that name, I hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "started to "sound better" and described it as a "[l]ovely song" ... they seemed "unfocused" and": I don't get why people make the mistake of quoting lots of completely ordinary phrases. This isn't a fancy FAC rule, this is common sense. Suppose I make a comment that the "article" had many "short, repetitive" phrases and numerous "punctuation" problems. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell I meant by the quote marks? Use quoted material sparingly, and only when it adds something to the narrative more than paraphrasing would. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: Thank you for your edits and your comments. I went ahead and removed some excessive quotation marks in the prose; I left ones in where the sentence referring to a quote (e.g. X described Y as "Z"). As a result, I removed the quotes from "desolate soul" so I don't feel a need for attribution. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The article is very well written and I couldn't find any issues while reading it. There is, however, a FN issue with FN#22, once this is fixed I can support. Best – jona ✉ 12:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • One last thing, if this song was released on November 7, 1995, wouldn't it be a single or even a promotional single? – jona ✉ 15:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @AJona1992: No, the song's album was released on 7 November 1995. There was no single or promo release for this song. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since you fixed the issue, I can now give my support. All the best – jona ✉ 20:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Mont Blanc massif[edit]

Nominator(s): Parkywiki (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a very significant range of high mountains within the European Alps. Whilst numerous pages exist on discrete elements of the massif (including Mont Blanc itself), I have enhanced this one from a simple List into a full article that now gives a good, sound, informative overview of all major aspects of this important alpine region. Parkywiki (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Burklemore1[edit]

I figured I'd add some feedback after you initiated an impressive review on my FAC. I'll start with geography, then work with the lead and later sections.

  • Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 are at present without references. The third one does have a citation, but the rest of the paragraph does not. Think you may need to go through this.

Done - geographic description was derived from French online IGN maps, but I've now added refs to books and paper maps. (Schoolboy error). Thanks for offering to comment - it's you're chance to get your own back for my detailed critique of your FAC! Parkywiki (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, this is an impressive nonetheless and I'll probably not find many issues. I'm quite busy with a few articles I've been working on, including Nothomyrmecia of course, but I'll definitely find some time for this. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, sorry for my absence with this FAC. Will definitely review this sometime, but I wouldn't mind seeing the issues given below all addressed first. It'd just make my reviewing process easier just in case I repeat some comments already provided. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
That makes eminent sense. I will ping you and the other reviewers who left helpful comments (which I am about halfway through addressing) once I believe these to have have been fully dealt with. Parkywiki (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from jfhutson[edit]

  • This is nitpicking, but you appear to be using en dashes in place of hyphens. See MOS:HYPHEN. Examples: north–eastern (MOS:COMPASS), Massif du Mont–Blanc (see the French Wikipedia version of the article), sight–seeing. --JFH (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Done - Nitpicking is good! I've now only left en dashes between date ranges, or where sentences are broken sentences.Parkywiki (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • You're using the URL of the website hosting the document cited in footnote 4 as the website parameter. This makes it show up as the italicized "work". In this case, I'd say "International Boundary Study" is a series and "Italy – Switzerland Boundary" is the title. All that website is doing is hosting an already published document. For all your cite web templates, you should use the title of the website rather than the URL of the website if that website really is the larger "work" in which the cited page is being published.--JFH (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this article, but in my opinion it needs some fundamental reworking.

  • The article's structure is confusing, particularly in the history section - we start with a chronological account and then jump into a thematic organization, including subsections that are only sort of historical in nature. We also seem to be missing pieces of the story - for example, there's mention of plane crashes as an aside under Glaciers, but no mention of these anywhere in the history. Normally we'd expect to see significant events of this type described in the history narrative.
  • There's an overemphasis on tourism details throughout
  • The article is generally underlinked - many people won't know what "biotite mica" or "vascular plants" are
  • Tables can be hard to interpret. For example, what is your definition of "largest" in the Glaciers table? Where does the information under Observations come from? Conversely, details of climate data might be better presented in table form rather than as prose.
  • The article would benefit from a run-through for MOS issues - blockquotes shouldn't have quote marks, adjectival measurements should use hyphens, 'see also' shouldn't repeat links included inline, there shouldn't be spaces between footnotes, etc.
  • Images
  • There are a lot of them, to the point that they're disrupting the layout and causing blank space
  • Some of them seem to be more 'artistic' than encyclopedic. For example, the ibex image is visually interesting but doesn't really give us a sense of what the full animal looks like.
  • File:Zentralbibliothek_Zürich_-_Vallée_de_Chamonix_Traversée_de_la_Mer_de_Glace_-_400017818.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? This is a 20th-century image so it's quite possible they did not
  • France does not have freedom of panorama, so depictions of statues and buildings need to include details on the copyright status of the pictured thing as well as the photo itself
  • Sourcing
  • Spotchecks found a few instances of material not supported by cited sources. For example, I don't see mention of a pollution-reduction rationale in this source
  • Formatting is generally inconsistent - sometimes books include publisher locations and sometimes not, Further reading is hand-formatted while References are templated, some publication names aren't italicized when they should be, etc
  • Daily Mail is not usually considered an RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Nikkimaria, for taking the trouble to read and leave your views on the article. I have since addressed a number of the concerns you raised, and will continue to address the remainder. Unless you would prefer me to comment on progress in a line-by-line manner, I will follow WP:FAC guidelines and return with a single commentary when the points you raised have been addressed, though I might offer an explanation now that I excluded plane crashes from the history section as I felt none were historically significance to the mountain range as a whole, but did serve to demonstrate the slow, inexorable movement of ice down the mountain in the glacier section. I could be wrong, though. Parkywiki (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Understood, but I would counter that some of the events you did include - eg. Winter Sports Week - are no more significant to the mountain range as a whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Progress update: I thought it might be appreciated if I reported back to advise that I have been working through each one of the helpful points highlighted above, and have nearly completed these tasks. I will report back again next week once I have completed these. Major changes in response to feedback now include: two climate data tables created, section re-structuring, correct referencing and thinning-out of images. Inevitably, for a high mountain range without permanent residents (apart from in the valley bottoms) creating a full historical narrative is not really practicable, so I have responded to concerns by adding a timeline of significant tragedies occurring across the range, which I hope helps address this. I excluded significant mountaineering accomplishments so as not to further expand the tourism / alpine climbing history any further, or straying into the domain of other articles. Meanwhile I would welcome feedback as to whether it is acceptable for me to have included so many links to non-en wiki articles? I'll happily remove them all - especially in the Flora section - as I appreciate they are generally discouraged, but felt their inclusion did support the article by linking to the best non-english pages, even if they did make the page appear overly red-linked. Parkywiki (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to that linking style. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Peter Martyr Vermigli[edit]

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Vermigli was an influential but lesser-known Reformation theologian who has experienced a renaissance of scholarly interest. He was born in Italy and converted to Protestantism after meeting Italian reformers. He fled the Inquisition in his forties and spent time with Bucer in Strasbourg, Cranmer in England, and Bullinger in Zurich. J Milburn conducted a thorough review and passed the article recently at GA. JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • Great work in general.
Thanks!--JFH
  • The opening sentence does not state Vermigli's nationality. I appreciate that this might be a complex issue (Italy not yet existing as a state, etc), but could we not refer to him as Florentine? Doing so helps to situate him in a particular geographical context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Done I don't have a problem calling it Italy. My sources call him Italian and it was referred to as such as a region before becoming a state.--JFH
  • "Vermigli was attracted to the priesthood from an early age." - maybe "Catholic priesthood". I know that that seems obvious for anyone familiar with the region and time period in question, but some readers may not be aware of the Catholic hegemony of the region and might suspect that it was also inhabited by Protestants or pagans or whatever. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Done.--JFH (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lent and Advent" - I'd recommend adding a link to these two events. Many people who live outside of Christian communities will not be familiar with them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Done--JFH
  • "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor to read the Old Testament scriptures" - i'd go with "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor in order to read the Old Testament scriptures". It'll just make it that little bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, the script I use to convert to Oxford English excised this, but I've found no evidence this is a British/American issue. I agree it helps. --JFH
  • " learned from Vermigli. Vermigli had learned" - "learned" appears twice in quick succession. I'd recommend replacing one with a synonym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Done --JFH
  • "arguing that the Jesus' words "this is my body" at the institution of the sacrament" - this doesn't really make much sense to me ("the Jesus"?). COuld it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Definite article was a typo. I also clarified that this is at the Last Supper. Does that help enough or still unclear?-JFH
  • Thomas Cramner is linked to about four times throughout the article; only two are permissible, that in the lede and the first mention in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I found three and deleted one.-JFH
  • " has argued that Peter Martyr Vermigli, Wolfgang Musculus, and Heinrich Bullinger " - we really don't need Vermigli's whole name here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Done-JFH
  • "regarded by New England Puritan divines" - what is a divine in this context? If possible, could we have an explanation or a link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Old-fashioned word for theologian, fixed-JFH (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • On the basis of the text and comprehensiveness, I am happy to give this my Support. Good work, JFH! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, all images of Italian buildings should explicitly account for the copyright status of the building as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a PD-old-100-1923 to File:Le balze, veduta su badia fiesolana.JPG, as the building is well over 100 years old. I hope that was the right move, as I've never dealt with building photos before. Thanks for the review. --JFH (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
It was, but you'll need to do something similar with File:Basilica_di_San_Frediano_Lucca.jpg as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that's now done too. --JFH (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Driveby comments: watch out for overuse of "reform" and its variations ("Reformation"), especially in para 1 of the lead and para 2 of Legacy. Similarly the "Christ's body and blood" three-peat in the lead. "Peter Martyr Vermigli (Italian: Pietro Martire Vermigli, born Piero Mariano Vermigli"—rather than begin the article with three repetitions (basically) of his name, could you move the second two to a footnote?—indopug (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful, and your edits improved the article as well. --JFH (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

HMS Emerald (1795)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 36-gun frigate of the Royal Navy which served with distinction during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Since becoming a good article in August last year, additional information has been incorporated and I have given it a thorough copy edit and checked all sources for possible copyright violation. I believe it is now as complete as reliable sources will allow and that it satisfies the criteria (IMHO) Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I have enlarged to 300px. Is that about right, do you think? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ykraps. For the benefit of readers that rely on special image sizes, please use our image scaling parameter instead of hardcoding the image size. The scale for 300px would approximately be upright=1.36
Remove 300px, and replace it with upright=1.36 (between two vertical bars). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I have never come across that before. If I can find where it is I will read up on it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Found at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax

  • Hi, Ykraps. I made two edit sessions starting here to nudge things along, and will do more in a couple of days. Ping me back when the review is further along so I can !vote on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for your edits.--Ykraps (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax: The review is further along. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, Ykraps. I believe the lead would be more engaging if it had much less minute detail. Leave the minutia for the body. Slash the minutia. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    I've removed some trivial detail. See what you think. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • I'll start making comments, but don't edit the article yet please, I'm working on it.
  • "a Spanish treasure fleet was", "The British fleet under George Elphinstone were": check the article for consistency on was/were after "fleet".
    Done - Just the one instance, I think.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "a number of": search for this throughout; there's some evidence that it's ambiguous, at least as used on Wikipedia. Delete it, or say "several", or be more specific. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    Done - Changed one and deleted another. The precise 'number of' is given later anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "the 74-gun Leviathan, the admiral's flagship, Swiftsure and a small fireship, Incendiary.": Is that two, three or four ships? Be careful with the wording in your lists.
    There were four ships including Emerald. I see what you mean and hopefully I have now made it clear.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, copyediting this is giving me a headache so I'm going to stop at Caribbean service, about halfway. Hopefully someone will pick up the copyediting from there. I may come back and support later on. It's engagingly written. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your edits and I am sorry it gave you a headache. I reverted one change here as it is more usual to say sail when talking about ships. Or perhaps it's a dialect thing. I'll double check.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    No, I'm pretty sure it's not limited to a particular dialect. The most high profile example I can think of is at the Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797) where Robert Calder and Benjamin Hallowell count Spanish ships as they appear.[19] Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    How about "ships"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    As a substitute for sail? I'm not sure. I try to avoid using 'ship' as it had a very specific meaning during this period of history whereas 'sail' is a nondescript term for any unidentified ocean going vessel and is routinely used in history books. Where I've used ship as a generic term, I have tried to make this clear by including a description or link to the vessel in question.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    vessel, craft? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    Either could work. I have rewritten the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    All the edits since mine look great. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Brigadier-general", "Lieutenant-colonel": Hyphenation can vary a bit; I really can't say if this is okay at FAC or not.
    Hi Dank, can you elaborate here? I've scanned the article but can't see what you mean by hyphen variation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't mean it varies in your article, I meant it varies in the wild, so maybe your usage is fine ... but I rarely see those two with a hyphen in military history articles on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    I was going to say, it's an Engvar thing but having checked the three dictionaries I have to hand:The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8.  and Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198610571.  both hyphenate; Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5.  does not. So yes it does seem to vary but providing it doesn't vary within the article, I assume it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed the commas (I think) down to Caribbean service, but the comma usage continues to be substandard after that, and I hope someone will fix the commas before this gets promoted.
  • Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for your support. I hope I can sort out your remaining niggles. Best--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Euryalus

  • Nicely detailed, and it's about time there were more featured articles about eighteenth century ships. I have a bunch of comments, so these are a starting point only. Please consider my comments in the light of my justified reputation for pedantry.

Lead, first paragraph

  • Consider “was a 36-gun” instead of “one of the 36-gun” as the current wording suggests the reader is either familiar with Amazon-class vessels, or that Emerald was one of the ones with 36-guns as compared to ones with other numbers.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that all the Amazon's were 36-gun but I take your point and have changed as per your suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove “there” in last sentence, as redundant.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • John Jervis was a knight, but his role in this context was as an admiral – consider changing the honorific.
    Done - again I take your point, although I have referred to him later on as "Admiral" John Jervis. Is the repetition okay do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead, second paragraph

  • Suggest rewording second sentence as “In 1797 ’’Emerald’’ was one of ... the crippled Spanish flagship Santisima Trinidad which had managed to escape from the British victory at the Battle of Cape St Vincent.” Reasons: it doesn’t imply Emerald was at the Battle, it notes why the Spanish ship was important, and it gives a year to add context to the paragraph above.
    Done - yes, much better. I'm afraid my leads are always a bit weak. I write them last to ensure that they summarise nicely but by that time my mind is wandering onto my next project.--Ykraps (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Capitalise “Admiral” in “Rear-Admiral” – lower case is generic but this refers to a specific person and should be capitalised (in the same way as commodore as a rank and Commodore John Smith as an individual)
    Done - I was of the opinion that when hyphenated, only the first part should be capitalised but as this has come up before and having failed to find a single example to support my position, I've come to the conclusion that I'm wrong!--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead, third paragraph

  • Wikilink “western approaches” as it may not be a commonly recognised term. The eighteenth century western approaches was larger and more southerly than the one mapped in our article on it, but it is close enough to be of value as a link.
    Done - I initially chose not to link for the very reason you have given above but your argument has some merit.--Ykraps (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    What we need is someone with an enthusiasm for both eighteenth century maritime history and obscure marine geography, who can expand that article and avoid this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed we do.

Construction section

  • Instead of “one of the first” ‘’Amazon’’-class frigates, how about “the second of four.”
    I wrote that sentence in that way because, as she was ordered and laid down at the same time as Amazon, I considered Emerald to be joint first. She was launched a little later though (27 days) so I suppose she was second.--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've had a go at the entire section. See what you think now.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Too many decimal places in the construction dimensions, suggest reducing to a single decimal place as the text is currently too precise for an eighteenth century craft.
    There is a parameter one can add to the template to restrict the number of decimal places but can't find where it is for the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    Now done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Last sentence – the Winfield ref says she was copper sheathed at Woolwich, which was completed by 12 October. This isn’t really fit-out, which needs only to have occurred before she sailed for the Mediterranean in January 1797. To come closest to the reference, suggest changing fit-out to copper sheathing in this sentence.
    Done - I may have obtained that info from another source but it should agree with the reference cited so I have changed it pending further investigation.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Spell out tonnes burthen in the section, instead of using (bm)
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not essential, but consider adding the names of the remaining two Amazon's, either in the text or as a note. Winfield notes these two were built from fir – do we know what Emerald was principally made from? Am assuming oak, and could probably hunt this down for you if you think it adds anything. Otherwise, up to you but I wonder whether it might be better to remove the reference to fir for the remaining vessels as it begs the question on timbers for the subject of this article.
    As there wasn't an article on Amazon-class, I thought it might be useful to include a bit about other Amazon's so I'd like to keep it if possible. Any info you have on it would be a bonus. I have added a note regarding the names as you suggested. Further thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking re oak/fir for first pair. Footnote looks good on the second pair - I wonder if the apostrophe is in the right place? Not an area I am expert in, it just looks odd the way it is. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    It shouldn't be there at all. I have removed it.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediterranean service section

  • Winfield and Clowes both spell the captain’s name “Berkeley” – obviously spellings were variable at the time, just highlighting this to make sure we have the most common usage.
    Done - I think that spelling came from another book but again I have changed to agree with the source used.--Ykraps (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Paragraph is too long – consider a break after “nearby Lagos Bay with other vessels.”
    Done - good suggestion.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The listing of vessels sent to pursue Santimisima Trinidad - sentence is a bit long, doesn’t explain that ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ was the Spanish flagship, and as a minor syntax issue suggests Jervis issued the orders to the frigates themselves, rather than the crew. How about
“... entered the bay. Admiral Jervis ordered that three frigates - ‘’Emerald’’, the 40-gun ‘’Minerve’’ and the 32-gun ‘’Niger’’ – begin a search for the disabled Spanish flagship ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ which had been towed away from the battle. They were to be accompanied by two smaller craft, the 20-gun corvette ‘’Bonne-Citoyenne’’ and the 14-gun sloop ‘’Raven’’.”
  • Again, good suggestion - done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I appreciate this is an article on the ship and not the crew, but it may be worth noting historical conjecture that Berkley’s failure to bring ‘’Emerald’’ to engage the Spanish flagship was responsible for his subsequent resignation from command. It’s in both James (referenced in this paragraph) and the “History of the Royal Navy by Clowes (I can drum up the Clowes ref for you if you like).
    If that was the case then I think it's a good idea to include something but all I can find in James (vol ii) is, "Captain Berkeley was much censured for his apparent want of resolution". Unfortunately it doesn't say by whom so that will invite immediate tagging. And, unless I'm missing something, Clowes (vol iv) simply says the motives for his mysterious actions were never made public.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm, not sure what I was reading, then. Give me a little while and will either come back with a different source or strike this. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Various newspapers from March-May 1797 indicate Berkeley was to be court-martialed on Jervis' orders for his failure to capture the Spanish ship, despite her having struck her colours on his approach (so the censure is both by the newspapers and by implication Jervis). However this slightly breathless account indicates the court martial was called off when the captain of Minerve offered a convincing explanation for Berkeley's conduct. So have stopped looking, as the reasons for Berkeley's resignation might reasonably be described as matters of historical dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    If we wanted to include something about censuring, we could use the source you've found to say something like, "Berkeley's reluctance to attack infuriated some of his fellow officers who asked for a court-martial. Minerve's captain, George Cockburn however came down on Berkeley's side, opining to Jervis that, under a jury rig, Santassima Trinidad was still capable of making a defence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest using the full name (well, the Royal Order name) of Santisima Trinidad (Holy Trinity) on all occasions and not shortening it to Trinidad (Trinity) as occurs in one instance.
    Done
  • The last sentence relates to the subsequent section and should be included there instead of here.
    Done - I was trying to create a link to the next section but it didn't really work.--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The subheader "Mediterranean service" doesn't work here, as everything down to "Caribbean service" is also Mediterranean. A non-essential suggestion: consider removing the “Career” header entirely and making “Mediterranean service” “Caribbean service”, “Home waters” and “Later career” the new level twos.
    Would you mind taking another look at this? There is very little difference between the two so you probably haven't noticed that the headings between "Mediterranean service" and "Caribbean service" are level three headings. They are sub-headings of the Mediterranean section. I have used the {{TOC limit|3}} template to stop them showing in the contents box which I thought was a bit too large.--Ykraps (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    In order to make it a bit clearer, I've removed the template so the contents box displays all.--Ykraps (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "hopelessly" seems like editorial, suggest removing this word.
    Done

Will have a few other comments in another day or so. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediterranean service Uses Terpsichore twice in the last sentence – is it possible to remove or replace the second use of the word?

Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Action of 26 April

  • Not essential, but the section could probably do with a sentence or two to set the scene for what we are about to read – for example, why the British were blockading Cadiz, and how many ships were involved.
    There was an explanation further on in the article but I think it should have been given earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The first and second sentences – on a first read I was uncertain if the Spanish ships captured/destroyed in sentence one are the same ones as mentioned in sentence two. Is there a way to make these two sentences relate to each other a little more. As above, not essential.
    Does the addition of a simple "the" improve it any?--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The section could do with a map, if one exists, as there are a lot of place names.
    I would've liked one showing the relative positions of Cadiz, Trafalgar and Conil bay but alas nothing seems to be available. I'll request one at the appropriate venue, if I can find where it is.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • “which posed a threat to unwary seamen” seems a bit redundant?
    Okay, agreed. I wanted to convey that it was a hazard the Spanish weren't expecting their pursuers to have the skill or courage to negotiate but as we're not writing an adventure novel...--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • “Irresistible and Emerald had captured Ninfa and destroyed Santa Elena but ...” suggest removing these words as redundant. It is important to note the silver was delivered, but the rest simply restates what we read previously.
    Done - I was trying to make the point that the victory was a somewhat hollow one but I've reworded and I think I've managed to retain that feeling.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As with previous section, the last sentence (“Later in 1797 ...”) doesn’t really work here and perhaps belongs in the section below.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In a minor FAC transgression I've also made a mild copyedit to this section, directly to the article. Please feel free to revert if you prefer - it was just quicker to make these directly than to type them out here. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, your edits look good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Second bombardment of Cadiz

  • I like the introductory sentences here as they give necessary context. Am assuming Emerald missed the Battle of Cape Vincent – do we know why?
    Not missed as such; normally only 3rd rates and above fought in fleet actions so she was anchored in nearby Lagos Bay with the other smaller vessels. There is a small sentence saying as much in the previous section.--Ykraps (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Here Jervis orders a blockade of Cadiz, but Emerald was already blockading Cadiz in the previous section. I think it was the same blockade?
    I think this has been sorted by moving the explanation further up the page.--Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Which side owned the mortar boats that were captured?
    Done - Spanish.--Ykraps (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    have struck the above, but its not clear how a bombardment of the town leads to the capture of Spanish mortar boats, which were presumably docked (you cannot use mortar boats to defend against ships at sea).
  • Last sentence doesn’t entirely work and might be better located in the following section.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fewer suggestions for the following sections, I promise. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am happy to have a thorough review.--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexandria

  • Idle curiosity – are we still with Jervis at Lisbon? Also, I imagine there’s no answer to this but how did we end up with a temporary captain in Proby? Proby was only a Lieutenant at this time – seems a surprisingly large command for an 18-year old.
    Yes, still with Jervis. The ex-Mediterranean fleet was stationed in the Tagus, waiting for an opportunity to re-establish itself. I'll see what I can find out about Proby but I'm not very hopeful.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've made it clear that Emerald is still in Jervis' fleet.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Second sentence could do with a copyedit – I know what you’re saying by listing Nelson’s ship next to his name, but breaking up the ship list and putting the destination in between, is a bit hard to follow.
    I've listed the ships together - see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Third sentence “became separated from the rest of the squadron” might read better – otherwise it is “Emerald”” herself that becomes separated. Also, “two weeks later” might read better than using a second date in the same sentence.
    As the battle happened over a couple of days, saying, 9 days later, or similar begs questions such as; did she miss just the start or the entire battle? I have kept the dates therefore but rewritten slightly. Again, see what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In the sentence on going to Alexandria, might be good to explain why. Also, needs the date of the Battle of the Nile as is not otherwise evident why being lost in a storm on 21 May means the battle is missed.
    Done - have added more detail and rewritten section.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Was Anemone captured off Alexandria where “Emerald” was stationed?
    Yes. After the Battle of the Nile, Emerald remained off Alexandria for the rest of the year (part of a squadron under Samuel Hood, I believe). Winfield only says where not who with or what she was doing but I remember reading somewhere that she was assisting with the evacuation of French troops. There is a sentence at the end of the previous paragraph which might be better placed at the beginning of this one?--Ykraps (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    James says that Nelson, "...sailed for Naples ; leaving Captain Hood with the Zealous, Goliath, Swiftsure, Seahorse (who had joined on the 17th), Emerald, Alcmène, and Bonne-Citoyenne, to cruise off the port of Alexandria". I vaguely remember reading that she was left to blockade the port, possibly in Clowes but I can't find it at the moment.--Ykraps (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    I've added this information using Clowes.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • “Wooden casks” seems odd here – did they build a raft?
    No, as being able to swim was unusual at the time, swimmers among the British crew swam in with empty casks for the French seamen to use as buoyancy aids. Various sources say the casks were small so I am assuming they were empty rum containers as the water would've been kept in large barrels, and various sources (including James) attribute it to a single lieutenant (my mistake, Middy), Francis Fane (Royal Navy officer). I cannot find the original source I used for this section and I am having difficulty opening the Gazette citations to see what they say. I will try to open them from a computer at work tomorrow and have another look.--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    The Gazette says "our people" but particularly mentions a midshipman from Emerald. I have added some more detail and added James as a source.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Camin needs a first name as will be unfamiliar to the reader (including me).
    Neither the Gazette nor James gives first names and I have so far been unable to find a source that does. I initially left out names as I thought them an unnecessary detail but another editor, User:Acad Ronin put them in later; using the Gazette as the source, presumably.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Clowes doesn't give first names either.--Ykraps (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    User:Acad Ronin has found a source and entered Camin's full name in the form of a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not essential, but I would remove “as well as some other passengers” as superfluous.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

18 June 1799

  • Only one here - "advance Mediterranean fleet" - in advance of what?
    The source only refers to it as such. At the time, the Royal Navy had withdrawn from the Med and had no permanent presence there. Following the Battle of the Nile, with French force weakened, the British started looking for a permanent base, which they found after the capture of Minorca. I am assuming that Emerald was part of a small fleet sent in advance of the main Mediterranean fleet stationed at Lisbon.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    James also makes reference to Emerald as being part of an "..advanced division under Lord Keith", but is not altogether clear as to its purpose. I have therefore removed the phrase, until a satisfactory answer is found.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Caribbean service

  • Not essential - Did the invasion force also include troopships, or was it solely the listed RN vessels?
    None of the sources list troopships so I assume the troops were carried aboard the vessels listed.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also not essential, but it would be better not to have a one-sentence paragraph here – is it possible to put this sentence on the end of the preceding paragraph instead?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fort Diamond

  • Suggest putting the reason for the use of the boats ahead of the first sentence, which explains the effect of using them. Would also be useful to add “Captain” before O’Bryen in this instance – we met him in the preceding section but as this is only the second mention it helps make clearer who he is.

Apropus

  • Minor grammar issue – the schooner and batteries didn’t “see” Emerald – it was their crews/gunners.

Back in Basque Roads

  • Possibly making too much of this section – Is it correct that “Emerald”’s only role here was to stay behind while other vessels engaged? If so this may not need its own section; if not then I’ve misunderstood and perhaps this could be made slightly clearer in the text.
  • Yes, Emerald was left to shadow the French fleet. An important role which I think needs mentioning but I take your point and have shortened the description of the engagement as that is not so relevant.--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph typo: calls Stopford Stoppard

Chase of “Niemen”

  • First sentence is a bit long – can this be broken in two? Again I slightly wonder about the need for the section - "Emerald" spotted "Niemen" but then lost her - really this section is about the two captures mentioned in the first sentence.
  • I have shortened this section and added it to the previous section. I agree Emerald didn't play much of a part in those actions but thought they were worth mentioning in order to lessen the gaps in her history and to show where Emerald was an what she was doing at the time (if that makes sense).--Ykraps (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

  • Well done for amassing his much detail on a frigate, which by definition is usually in a supporting role or in minor engagements that barely make the histories. It is certainly detailed enough for an FA; if I had any regrets it would be a) that we have a good history of the ship’s battles but not much on the ship itself; b) that the battles sometimes read like a list, and c) there's occasionally too much detail without context on its relevance. But these are the realities of the kind of coverage these vessels get, and you’ve made the most of what exists. Most of this last set of comments are suggestions only, once you correct the typo etc, support. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the most beautiful of the commemorative half dollars and the rarest by design. I suppose by today's standards, the whole thing smacks of political incorrectness, especially the idea of Cook "discovering" an inhabited island. But it's still a nice coin.Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Quick comments Singora (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a commemorative coin for the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin."

vs.

"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a coin commemorating the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin (or: coin's issue)."

And ....

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar came about because of the observances there for the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."

vs.

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar was minted (struck) to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."

And ...

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollars by design". Is the plural intentional?

I've made those changes, though in my own words (the plural was a mistake and has been corrected). Thank you indeed for the careful review. It shows how one falls into habits in writing ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Ha! That wasn't a "careful review" -- I skimmed the article after seeing your blurb re: Captain Cook. I can't do too much more as your references aren't linked. If you could give me URLs to specific pages I'll check the sources, though I'm guessing these books aren't available for preview on Google. The one I did check pointed to George Mason University and asked me for a password.
In the legislation section, I can email you copies of any sources you desire. The books I own and I don't think they do google books preview. I can email you copies of book pages but not until next week as am traveling.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, go for it. Next week is fine. I'm pretty sure that by emailing me (even via Wikipedia) I'll get your contact details. If this is an issue contact the administrator CasLiber. I've emailed him in the past and he ought to be able to confirm I'm a legitimate company owner. Singora (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I will send you an email. The Congressional sources are easy, the others I can send you a selection of pages, plus any individual ones you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Email received. I will of course treat your details as confidential. You can forward me PDFs, JPGs, PNGs and/or ZIPs. I don't know how senior you are, or if you're an administrator, but further down this list is an article about Catherine Zeta Jones. I glanced at it and noticed that sources include the UK's Sun (1 instance), Daily Mirror (4 instances) and Daily Express (3 instances), Australia's Herald Sun (1 instance), Fox News and People Magazine (7 instances). The article is an obvious oppose (you can't possibly use those sources), yet no one has picked up on this. At the very bottom of the page is a video game article, Nights into Dreams. LazerBrain asked for a source review, but no one has pointed out that refs 41 and 66 (among others) are incorrect. You may wish to pass this info on to someone. Singora (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I am an administrator, though this is not a matter of administrative jurisdiction. If you reply to the email I sent you, I will send you the government materials immediately and jpgs when I get home in a week of the book pages. My identity, Gary M. Greenbaum, is not confidential, though I choose to edit under a pseudonym. I can't send you stuff until you reply to my email as attachments are not possible through the Wikipedia mail system. I will pass on what you say about the Zita-Jones article to the FAC going on there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
OK -- I've replied to your Wiki email via Yahoo and sent you an email via Wikipedia. You'll now have two of my email addresses, and can use either to forward me your stuff. I didn't realize you can't send attachments with this Wiki set up. Singora (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Chester_Beach.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Kamehameha_I_full_5110.png needs a US PD tag for the statue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I've cut the first and changed the licensing on the second. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lead states "In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill" whereas the body states "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii". Rather than merely point out the contradiction there, I'm going to dig deeper. I know next to nothing about the Hawaii legislature, whether territorial or state. OTOH, I'm more than very familiar with the territorial legislature of Alaska, where I live. In those days, legislation passed by the Alaska legislature was in the form of memorials to Congress. The territory's delegate would then introduce that legislation in Congress, which would consider and/or act on it. I would assume that Hawaii operated the same way, but I've not read any of Hawaii's organic acts and therefore really can't say.
They passed both a resolution and an act, actually. They may not have used the form you mention. I'll tweak it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In the "Inception" section – to me, it comes across as disjointed and perhaps a bit redundant to make a vague reference to "an organization" which was authorized to purchase the coins from the Mint, then in the very next sentence explicitly mention that organization, yet these sentences appear in different paragraphs.
  • Also in the second paragraph of "Inception", the specific affiliations of some individuals were mentioned, but not of others. I was still in the dark after reading that text as to whether some of the people mentioned were local Hawaiians, or federal officials, or perhaps both.
  • In the first sentence of the "Legislation" section, is Don Taxay the only person known to have commented on that particular aspect? Of course, other perspectives are helpful if they exist, especially if they're non-numismatic in nature.
Yes. He's the only one, and it's just an offhand comment. Numismatics is thinly covered by references, I fear. Most of his book
  • The wording of the first and second sentences of that section comes across as slightly repetitive.
  • "South Dakota Senator Peter Norbeck" – in this particular context, "Senator" appears to run afoul of MOS:JOBTITLES, which I realize is widely ignored because bludgeoning readers with officialdom at every turn is evidently more important.
I'm aware of it, but I feel in the context of political and numismatic articles, having that as lower case in the midst of capital letters is distracting to the reader.
  • "with the profits to be used toward establishing a Captain James Cook collection in the territorial archives." As the mechanics of the coin's distribution and pricing were mentioned earlier on, I'm confused as to whether "the profits" spoken of were those made by the Mint or by the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission.
  • In "Production, distribution, and collecting" – The statement "The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution" is far enough removed in the article from the statement "The Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint" that it may help to elaborate on the exact arrangement those two entities had.
  • "and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". Do we know what sort of price they fetched at that auction? As it occurred a lot more recently than the 1920s, I would hope that it's not impossible to find out. It may appear to run afoul of WP:RECENT to explicitly mention auction prices or other values from the past few years in the very next paragraph but leave out similar details from a few decades ago.
None of my online sources address this. I will be home in a week to check the book sources. Most coin periodicals don't have extensive archives. The Numismatist does and I checked, and nothing. It is, by the way, the Auctions by Bowers and Merena " Bank of Hawaii Consignment and the Ezra Cole Collection", January 23-25, 1986.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I've sent an inquiry to the librarian at the American Numismatic Association library, asking if they have the auction catalog/prices realized. They have a large number of auction catalogs but they are not inventoried online. I will work on the other concerns expressed above soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In general, I enjoyed reading this. As the tasks I undertake on here put me into regular contact with the dregs of the encyclopedia, it's nice to discover the occasional article which is far removed from that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm very grateful for your comments. I hope I've answered them all satisfactorily. If I haven't responded, I've gone ahead and done as suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Source review: Singora Singora (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC) OK - I'll make a start. I've got 5 PDFs and some HTML. I'll get this done by Sunday. This is later than anticipated, but I got hit out of the blue with some stuff for a new client. More to follow.

Sorry about that. Do you want me to hold off on sending you the pdfs from the books (I plan to tomorrow) or should I send them?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, I've got five PDFs:

  • 1. Hawaii house hearings
  • 2. Hawaii house report
  • 3. Hawaii Senate report
  • 4. Hawaii senate passage
  • 5. Hawaii house passage

And the following books:

  • 1. Numismatic Art in America (pages 174-175). The first ref holds up: wrote that the obverse "is too crowded, despite the large, flat, clothed bust" and that the various elements of the reverse design "are all too much for one small coin". The second is wrong: you've written He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin", whereas the source gives He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 is no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin.
Correct, I meant to put an ellipsis here. Fixed. Thank you.
  • 2. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (the five scans are too small to use + the quality is dire)
Will resend.
  • 3. United States Commemorative Coinage (pages 84-87). RE: "These represent the eight largest volcanic islands of Hawaii: Oahu, Maui, Kauai, the "Big Island" of Hawaii, Niihau, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Molokai". This is good. RE: "rising from obscurity" is very similar to the text "arising from obscurity".
I guess. But Taxay didn't make up the phrase, so I don't feel there's an issue. Sometimes there's only one really good track. Open to suggestions.
I thought of "emerging", but it's not as good. You're right -- "rising / arising" is the natural word. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 4. Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog (pages 48-51). For page 48 you've got "Many Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars were purchased by non-collectors and display the effects of poor handling" and "At least three different counterfeits are known". These are fine. For page 50 you've got "Bruce Cartwright, Jr., was in charge of choosing a coin design for the Captain Cook commission. Mrs. Ethelwyn Castle arranged for him to meet Juliette May Fraser, a local artist. Cartwright had prepared cartoon-style drawings, with the portrait of Cook based on a Wedgwood plaque that had been owned by Queen Emma, showing the explorer facing right. Within two days, Fraser had produced sketches", "The reverse was based on a statue of King Kamehameha I of Hawaii, designed by Thomas R. Gould, and intended to symbolize the past and future glory of the Kingdom [of Hawaii]", "The one that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany to Hawaii; the original was later salvaged and stands at Kohala on the island of Hawaii" and "Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions". Why say "several sketches" when you only know for certain she made three?
If you don't think the three sketches shown justify "several", I will strike it.
Off the top of my head:
  • 1. YOU: Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions.
  • 2. ME: Juliette Fraser had drawn several (some / initial / sample / example) sketches, three of which are reproduced in the Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog. These illustrations share the same basic design elements, albeit with the chieftain and Diamond Head in different poses and positions. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a bit wordy. I think it's best just to mention the sketches. All we are trying to do here is establish she played with different ideas. I've tweaked it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 5. The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (these five scans are too small)
  • 6. The Encyclopedia of United States Silver & Gold Commemorative Coins (pages 95-99). For this source you've got "Of the remainder, half was to be sold on the Hawaiian Islands, half reserved for sale from elsewhere. The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution on behalf of the Captain Cook commission" and "Sales began October 8, 1928; sales were good and supplies were quickly exhausted. Numismatists Anthony Swiatek and Walter Breen, in their book on commemoratives, write that while there was never any scandal about these coins, there were unconfirmed rumors of hordes of coins, totaling as many as 1,500, bought by insiders and kept off the market". Not sure about this. The deal seems to be that 1500 of the 4975 intended for distribution in Hawaii were kept off the market. There's nothing to indicate that hoarding took place elsewhere. Perhaps you should clarify this. Note that the Bowers source uses the term "investors" rather than your "insiders".
If they got to buy more than the mintage limit of 5, they were insiders, but I'll strike the word. I've clarified that the rumors say that the hoarded coins came from the local allocation.
Good. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


I'll save this before I continue. Singora (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • 7. Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia (pages 235-239). For page 237 you have "The Philadelphia Mint coined 10,008 Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars in June 1928, with the eight pieces above the authorized mintage reserved for inspection and testing at the 1929 meeting of the annual Assay Commission. Fifty of the ten thousand were specially finished as sandblast proof pieces" and "One such grouping, of 137 pieces, comprised coins from an allotment for the Bank of Hawaii for sale to its employees. When the display coin was stolen, the bank president took the others off sale, and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". The source says the coins were placed in the bank's vault for over half a century. Nothing about 1986. For page 238 you've got "The price was $2 per coin, the highest for a half dollar commemorative to that point". This is okay.
The 1986 is on page 237. "at auction to the order of the Bank of Hawaii, Ltd. on January 23, 1986".
  • 8. A Guide Book of United States Coins (pages 1138-1139). For this you've got "The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollar by design; according to R.S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins published in 2015, it lists for between $1,850 and $11,000 depending on condition. The sandblast proofs are listed for up to $50,000 but none has recently been sold at auction—an exceptional specimen of the regular type went under the hammer for $25,850 in 2013". This is all good.


What am I supposed to do with PDFs? Tell me what sources link to which PDF. Singora (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The PDFs are the copies of the government documents, hearing transcripts, congressional record, and so forth. They mostly support the "Legislation" section. I'll resend the others. Thank you for taking such time and effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've sent them to you. The five pdfs I sent you earlier are the hearing transcript, the committee report, and excerpts from the Congressional Record. Since there's only one per date, it should be clear when you open them--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to do this over the next day or so. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The two missing books Singora (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • 1. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (pages 123-131).
    • Page 124: "On November 2, Charles Moore, chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts wrote to Assistant Director of the Mint Mary M. O'Reilly that Juliette Fraser's sketches were excellent and would translate well into a coin" and "Numismatic historian Don Taxay found it likely that members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures were pledged to support a Hawaii half dollar prior to a bill being submitted as preparations had begun".
Error! Correspondence with O'Reilly, along with the date, starts on page 123. Page 124 tells me the sketches had been prepared by Miss May Frazer. Why is he using her middle name?
I don't know why he uses her middle name. Adjusted.
Page 123 is also the correct source for your blurb re: members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. Why do you write "were pledged" instead of "had pledged"?
It struck me as vaguer and safer, since Taxay really doesn't tell us what was going on. I've adjusted all the page numbers complained of.
I've changed it to "had agreed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Page 127, 130: "Once Beach accepted the commission on March 12, 1928, Juliette Fraser's sketches were forwarded to him. On April 7, he sent completed models to the Mint and photographs to the Fine Arts Commission. Both the Mint and Houston responded with criticism, the former that the relief of the coin was high and difficult to reduce to coin-sized hubs"
Error! Page 124 tells me that Beach accepted on March 12.
Error! Pages 124 & 127 tell me the sketches were then forwarded to him
Error! You're telling me the relief was too high to reduce to "coin-sized hubs". This wasn't the problem. The deal was that the relief was simply too high for their machines (notice the Chief Engraver's comment: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin"). It was the text or lettering that, when reduced to coin-size, would be a problem: it was too small to start with and would be become indistinct when scaled down. The scaling issue, then, pertained to the text, not the height of the relief.
Examine the Caemmerer letter on p. 127. The relief was reportedly too high for their reducing machine (which was fairly common with commemoratives). I'm inclined to take Sinnock's word for it (it would have come from him originally), as he was the first chief engraver to be comfortable with the Janvier reducing machine.
You don't need to link to page 30, though if you re-read it you'll see the correspondents discus typefaces and letter-spacing. These are your scaling issues.
Finally, look again at that engraver's comment of yours: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin". Notice anything?
    • Page 129: "Ferns are visible under that Latin motto: Houston wanted the plants removed, but Beach insisted on retaining them to balance the design"
The word "balance" is the natural choice and can't really be changed.
    • Page 130: "Beach agreed to lower any high points that might cause the Mint difficulty"
Yep, this is okay.
    • Page 131: "Delegate Houston had a long list of quibbles about the coin's design. For example, Beach had placed an anklet on the chief's leg; Houston felt such an item would not have been worn. Beach defended some of his choices, such as the anklet (which was removed when Houston insisted), and promised to comply with the remainder. This did not satisfy Houston, who was also unhappy about the shape of the palm tree on the coin, and Beach modified the design again. Beach forwarded final models, indicating that he would only consider making changes if the Mint requested it. He wrote to Moore, I think the proper thing for Mr. Houston to do would be to take the sculptor and family to Hawaii and let us live in the cocoanut [sic] trees for a while and absorb the atmosphere of that paradise." and "The coin was endorsed by the Commission of Fine Arts; on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval".
Error! Houston's objection to the anklet ("pertaining to a dancer rather than a warrior") is introduced on page 128. On page 131 he mentions the anklet has not been deleted.
Error! RE: "on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval" No. On May 2 Beach wrote to Moore explaining the changes. O'Reilly wrote to Beach to announce formal approval on May 9. You've confused the dates of two different letters.

More later.

I've fixed all these things, I hope. Thank you for all your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Source review -- The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (Flyn) Singora (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Page 97: "The Captain Cook Memorial Collection, purchased in part with funds raised from the coins, is now in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu"
This is fine.
  • Page 98: "On April 19, Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock wrote in a memorandum that the coin would be very hard to produce because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the design"
You've not sent page 98.
Sent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pages 276-77: "The Commission of Fine Arts met, and, at the suggestion of sculptor-member Lorado Taft, decided to ask Buffalo nickel designer James Earle Fraser (no relation) as to who would be most suitable to turn the sketches into plaster models, from which the Mint could make coinage dies and hubs. Moore wrote to James Fraser on December 19, but as the recipient overlooked the matter, he did not respond until February 7, 1928. James Fraser suggested Peace dollar designer Anthony de Francisci, but Chester Beach was engaged instead"
This is accurate, though I'm not quite sure why the second sentence is needed. I mean, should I really care that James Fraser overlooked the matter, took a while to reply, and then suggested some dude who didn't get the job? Sentences one and three strike me as sufficient.
Agreed. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Page 278: "thus, his gaze is westward"
Yes, this is okay.

Page 98 checked & confirmed Singora (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC) It seems to me that your wording (the greatest relief) and that in the source (the bulk of the relief) are unusual ways of referring to what is generally described as "depth". See relief for more info. I guess this is a numismatist thing.

Yes, relief is the common term in numismatics, taken from the artistic. Terminology is always an issue, though I don't think there's much ambiguity in numismatics that can't be cured with a link to glossary of numismatics, though I do not maintain that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

PDF: To authorize coinage of silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of discovery of the Hawaiian Islands

  • 1. This is supposed to support "Perkins issued a report on February 1, 1928, recounting the history behind the proposed coin and indicating his committee's support", but I'm only seeing the minutes of a meeting that took place on January 23. Am I doing something wrong here? Singora (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll continue after you've clarified this point. I'm sure I've got the right PDF for the source. You've named it: Hawaii house hearings.

Sorry, Singora. What it is, is the report on the bill, it is three pages long.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, Wehwalt -- I'll finish this over the weekend. I see now this open brackets u|Wehwalt close brackets triggers the "ping". Is there a limit on how many times you can (or should) ping someone? I've had more than half a dozen from the Old Pine Church article further down this list. It comes across as kind of desperate. Singora (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Do what you feel is best as to your work, not being paid means no one can tell us what to do. Pinging usually works, I'm aware of no limits on it. Once or twice it hasn't worked terribly well, there's some discussion in my talk page archives about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, I've buggered this up. I was looking at the wrong PDF. Today I'll look at all refs for House Hearings. This is a 5-page PDF.
REF #1 (pages 2-5): "The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar was produced because of the observances there for the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming the first European to reach the Hawaiian Islands, or, as it was termed then, its discovery. Planners decided on a date for the celebrations as August 1928, as midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779. A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii[a] to give the celebrations official status, to ask the federal government to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations. It also asked the federal government to issue a half dollar and stamps in honor of the anniversary". Yep, this is a summary of the PDF.
REF #3 (page 1): "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint". I guess you could replace the second instance of Hawaii half dollar with coins. I'm seeing the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii, btw.
Sources seem to be careless on how they refer to the commission. I've adjusted it.--09:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
REF #9 (pages 1-3): "It was referred to the coinage committee, of which New Jersey Congressman Randolph Perkins was the chair, and which held hearings on the bill on January 23, 1928. Delegate Houston appeared in support of his bill, and to the surprise of committee members, had gotten a statement from Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, stating that Mellon did not oppose the bill. Usually, when a commemorative coin was proposed, Mellon argued that a medal should be issued instead. This had been the case for the Norse-American medal three years previously; its sponsor, committee member Ole J. Kvale of Minnesota, had scuttled plans for a coin because of Treasury Department opposition. Congressman Kvale was very much interested in learning what powers of persuasion have been exercised by the gentleman from Hawaii to bring out a favorable report". This should read such a favorable report.
I don't see where that makes a difference and I tend to go with fewer words over longer.--Wehwalt (talk)
REF #10 (page 4): "Kvale, a Norse-American, asked, why this discrimination against two and a half million people in the United States has come about in favor of about 35,000 whites in that Territory?" This is good.
REF #11 (pages 3-4): "Houston stated he had not lobbied the Treasury for the coin, and Perkins, before promising to find out more information, speculated that perhaps it was because the coins were to be issued far from the continental United States. Houston told the committee that the coin was something that may be kept by those who attend the celebration as a memorial of it and will be available to foreigners who come there, as well as our own people who celebrate the occasion". This is all good
REF #12 (pages 4-5): "Kvale stated he would vote for the bill. Mississippi's Bill G. Lowrey noted that as he had said before, he would not vote for any coin bill; Perkins agreed that Lowrey had made his position clear". Possible error. Nothing about Lowrey on pages 4-5.

More later Singora (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. As for Rep. Lowrey, his comment is at the bottom of page 5, underneath Governor Farrington's letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, Lowrey confirmed. The difference between "bring out a favorable report" and "bring out such a favorable report" is that your version is not what the guy is reported to have said. My understanding is that quotes need to be accurate. We had this issue earlier: you dropped the word "is". Singora (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures (February 1, 1928)

  • REF #13: "Perkins issued a report on February 1, 1928, recounting the history behind the proposed coin and indicating his committee's support". All good, though I wonder why you've not put in page numbers (1-3). Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Since we cover the whole thing, I felt it unneeded for a three-page report.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

1928 Congressional Record, Vol. 74

  • REF #14 (pages 3278–3279): "The bill was passed without objection by the House of Representatives on February 20, 1928". Your ref needs a plural for the page numbering. Dates are good. Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

1928 Congressional Record, Vol. 74 (March 2, 1928)

  • REF # 16 (page 3949): "The bill was passed by the Senate on March 2, 1928 without recorded opposition". This is okay. Again, you have inconsistencies re: page numbering (Page vs. p.). Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It's the template that produces that. That's been, I assume, considered acceptable in prior FAs as it has passed without objection. Thank you for your comments. I've made some minor p vs pp changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda[edit]

Thank you for another valuable coin. Only minor concerns:

Inception

  • "Mrs. Ethelwyn Castle, a civic-minded individual", - I noticed that the term "individual" might not be considered the politest.
  • "decided to ask Buffalo nickel designer James Earle Fraser", - I expected a name after "ask", but perhaps I am the only one.
I think its OK. It is a false title and appropriately rendered, in my view anyway. It is more compact to place it before the name.
fine if you say so, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Design

  • "The one that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany;", - afraid that "the one" is unclear, perhaps repeat "the statue"?
I changed it to sculpture. Open to ideas.
  • "The palm tree that rises above him is intended to signify romance." - how do we know that? I can't access the source, - is it given in the Slabaugh ref, somewhat later?
Yes, it is in Slabaugh. I can send you a copy if you want. It is from the description of the design, and I suspect he's borrowing from the Report of the Director of the Mint for 1928 or 1929.
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • translate the Latin motto?

That's it today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've done except as commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments and support.--09:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Prose review: I've read enough coin articles to consider myself, if not an expert, quite familiar with historic US coin issues. For one thing, the cast of producers, gainsayers and experts tends to be much the same (although in this case they seem to have avoided death or imprisonment). I'm giving it a fairly close reading, and here are my comments on the first half – largely suggestions and/or minor quibbles:

Lead
  • "Depicting Captain Cook on the obverse and a Hawaiian chieftain on the reverse, only 10,000 were struck for the public, making it rare and valuable today." The different statements are unrelated, but are artificially connected by the gerund (?) "depicting". Something like: "It depicts Captain Cook on the obverse and a Hawaiian chieftain on the reverse; only 10,000 were struck for the public, making it rare and valuable today." might resolve this.
  • Perhaps introduce Chester Beach as "Sculptor Chester Beach", otherwise he sounds more like a location.
  • The final "today" is indeterminate.
Inception
  • First line: "because of" → "as part of"? - and "of" rather than "for" in "for the 150th anniversary..."
  • I'd put "discovery" in quotes
I'm inclined to leave it as is. The phrasing is enough.
  • "Planners decided on a date for the celebrations as August 1928, as midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779." Suggest: "Planners decided on a date in August 1928 for the celebrations, midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779. "Sesquicentennial" should be linked.
  • I think I'dsplit this sentence: "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii to give the celebrations official status, to ask the federal government to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations." Thus: "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii giving the celebrations official status. The federal government was asked to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations. The resolution also requested the federal government..." etc
  • "issue a half dollar and stamps" → "issue a half dollar coin and postage stamps"
  • "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint." Could this be simplified to: "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii was to be the authorized group."?
  • It's not normal in WP articles to add "Mrs." to names. Is there a special factor in this case?
That's how the source refers to her. It does not say much about her, so I did not feel inclined to remove info.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Gerda, I don't think "individual" is necessarily impolite, but something a bit more informative might be helpful.
The source is not informative on the point of Mrs. Castle beyond what I have written
  • The words "as to" in the final paragraph seem unnecessary.
Legislation
  • First line: "found it likely" → "thought it likely" (or even "considered"? "Found" does not seem right.
  • Maybe add "earlier" to the end of opening sentence?
  • "On February 27, South Dakota's Peter Norbeck reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment and included in the report a letter from Secretary Mellon to Perkins dated February 13, in which Mellon expanded on his reasons for not opposing the Hawaii coin legislation: that only a token number of pieces would be issued, and that the celebration, sponsored by the territorial government, was of national significance". The sentence is a bit too long, and I got a confused as to whether the wording after the colon related to Norbeck's report or Mellon's letter. It's probably fairly obvious, but a sentence break would make it clearer: "On February 27, South Dakota's Peter Norbeck reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment, and included in the report a letter from Secretary Mellon to Perkins dated February 13, in which Mellon expanded on his reasons for not opposing the Hawaii coin legislation. Mellon stated that only a token number of pieces would be issued, and that the celebration, sponsored by the territorial government, was of national significance".

Second half to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I'm up to date. I have made the changes, though sometimes in my own words, except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The rest, such as it is:

Preparation
  • No issues
Design
  • "his gaze is westward" – that rather depends on tour position when you're holding the coin.
Word "left" removed".
  • "was based" → "is based"?
  • The comma after "Kamehameha I of Hawaii" should go, to clarify that Gould was the sculptor of the statue, not the designer of the reverse.
  • "The sculpture that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany; the original was later salvaged and stands at Kohala on the island of Hawaii." Relevance?
The sources don't say which was used, so I'm covering both possible origins.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Production etc
  • "When the display coin was stolen..." You might clarify "When the display coin from this collection was stolen..." etc
  • "The Captain Cook Memorial Collection" – it would be helpful if you said, briefly, what this is, presumably a museum or permanent display of Cook-related artefacts or memorabilia.
It seems to be Native Hawaiian material, since that is what they deal with. I don't find anything obviously useful on the web to back up Mr. Flynn's assertion. I'll continue to research this as opportunity presents. I may email the museum as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "the scarcest commemorative half dollar by design..." – not sure what "by design" means here. Isn't it just the scarcest commemorative half dollar?
No, some of the multiple date ones, including the Oregon Trail piece have lower mintages for a specific date and mintmark, but cumulatively there are more of that design. I haven't gotten to most of the multi-date series yet.

That's it – I'm rather scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Nicely done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: My outstanding points will I am sure be easily disposed of, so I won't withhold support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If I havent mentioned it, I've dealt with it. Re the barrel, no't nearly as I must ransack your work to find something to show I'm earning my keep, so to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Final comments Singora (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) I don't have time to check the last PDF, but I doubt this'll be a problem. Am I allowed to Support on sourcing? The article is factually accurate, and I guess this is what counts.

You certainly can, and given the work you've done, it is very welcome. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the more dramatic actions of World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Music played in the movie during the escape sequence

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, Hawkeye7. I made a deep polishing pass through the article and made several helpful edits to put the article closer to a Featured Article promotion. I fixed a couple of typos too, but I did not put that in my edit summary. Ping me back when you are ready for my !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax, there have been a couple of supports now, did you want to be pinged? - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Support –  on structure, MoS, accessibility, readability, and brilliance. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    Tried that. But it needs to be scaled up a lot before all the text becomes readable. Best to just allow readers to click on it to enlarge. When I watched the movie I got worried about my map, as it differs substantially from that shown. But our map is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Lieutenant_J._D._Bulkeley_k13927.jpg: is there a NARA link? The current source link is dead. Same with File:Lieutenant_John_D._Bulkeley_g14252.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    Updated to use the current NHC link. Added one more pic down the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class (almost 4 years ago). - Dank (push to talk)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see an article on this once-famous incident at FAC. I have the following comments:

  • "ultimately arriving in Melbourne on 21 March. This was the occasion of his famous speech in which he declared, "I came through and I shall return"" - this wording is a bit confusing given that the article notes that he actually said this while en-route to Melbourne
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The second para of the lead should note that MacArthur was the commanding officer of the forces in the Philippines
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Philippines had no navy at all" - but there was a US Navy fleet based there - perhaps note this earlier
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Have any historians commented on the rights and wrongs of the escape? It looks somewhat indulgent to modern eyes, though probably wasn't seen as such at the time.
    They don't seem to have. I have a lot of books on MacArthur, but none debate it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I just read the account of this incident in The Fall of the Philippines, and it had some good details to draw on to flesh out the "Decision" section a bit - such as the military rationale for ordering MacArthur out of the Philippines (the history notes that a very senior commander was needed in a hurry with MacArthur being the logical choice) and the timing of the escape (which MacArthur delayed until the situation in Bataan was relatively stable). There's also some interesting material on the extent to which MacArthur resisted evacuating, which Morton suggests was over-egged somewhat by MacArthur's admirers, as well as MacArthur's demand that the best pilots and aircraft in the US be assigned to get him out of the Philippines. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    I have added another paragraph detailing this, sourced from Morton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by jfhutson[edit]

  • The lead: I think we need to know earlier who MacArthur is and what danger he is in. I have to infer that this escape is from something other than being taken prisoner, and not until the third paragraph do I hear about the "blockade".
    Re-written the lead. I hope the first sentence is not too long. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    I think this falls in line with the second example given at WP:LEAD#Avoid these common mistakes and I made a few changes to the first couple sentences. I'm not married to them, but it reads better in my opinion (before we might have thought the Japanese were in the PT boats, and yes it was very long).--JFH (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    Seems natural enough. I moved the PT boats into the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "share the fate of the garrison" not immediately clear what this means
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "However radio broadcasts" needs a comma
    Deleted "however" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Rockwell was far from convinced" reader can't keep track of who's in the boat, so mention that he's in the same boat as Kelly
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "time consuming" hyphenate?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Will return for a second read-through. --JFH (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Agharta (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 1975 live album by jazz musician Miles Davis. It was a divisive record, controversial for its jazz-rock music, Davis' last recording before his retirement, and influential on a younger generation of musicians, particularly because of guitarist Pete Cosey's frenetic playing. The album was later reassessed positively by critics, who viewed it as the culmination of Davis' electric period and one of his best works. Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Prose review by Prism[edit]

For now I will just give a preliminary review and tomorrow I will hopefully explore the article better. At first read this is generally very good.

Lead
  • fiercely innovative is verging on puffery.
  • Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, Agharta, which is a mythological subterranean utopia. I suggest rephrasing this, since the word Agharta is already said in the previous sentence. Perhaps:
Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, which refers to a [[Agharta|mythological subterranean utopia]].
  • cover artwork — artwork is sufficient
Background
  • subsequently is redundant
  • The first concert began at 4:00 P.M. — It is previously mentined that it was held in the afternoon. This is trivia.
Reception and legacy
  • I believe mini-LP should be changed, as that term is usually reserved for mini-albums, as per the Wiki page that it is associated with.
I don't think that page is a very good reference. I added "replica" to make a distinction. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

More comments to come. Prism | (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made corrections. Btw, I didn't have this page on my watchlist, so I've been making many changes to the article, unaware someone had already taken a look at it lmao. Barring any needed corrections or IP vandalism, I've made my final changes to the article @Prism: Dan56 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
All good for now, and no problem, haha. Tomorrow I'll be continuing my review. Prism | (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Any areas for improvement/corrections @Prism:? Dan56 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

  • Support I've read the article thoroughly (sorry it took me few days), and I can comfortably support the prose. I think the article is well researched and well written, and given its legacy (as concluded in the reception section), it serves as a nice overview of this period of Davis' career.--Retrohead (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've read the first half and from what I can see so far it's well written and very informative. I just skimmed the second half and can't really comment nn that. Karl Twist (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from AJona1992
  • It would be better if you remove the "so he" and add a semicolon instead for better flow (first subsection; third paragraph). Other than that, the article is well-written, detailed and complete, the writing is superb, and well deserving of FA status. Another great read Dan, – jona ✉ 16:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I've revised it. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support from EddieHugh[edit]

I don't have much time, but I like what I've read and want to see another jazz piece get to FA. So, starting with the lead (just state your objections if you have them, as some of these are minor)...
  • "jazz community". Is there a better term than "community"?
Maybe "scene", but I've already used that in the body... both "jazz community" and "jazz scene" are often used in the literature. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "alternate cover". Despite "alternate" being a record label favourite, this really should be "alternative".
Merriam primarily defines "alternative" as another word for "alternate", so I'm not sure... Google Books turns up slightly more results for "alternate album cover", so I'm deferring to that. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The Merriam link is to the first definition of alternate: "occurring or succeeding by turns". If you insist that "alternate" is better, then I won't insist on "alternative", but it's ugly at best. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what you see; the link leads to the page "Alternative | Definition of Alternative by Merriam-Webster" and when I scrolled down to "Full Definition of alternative", the first listing was "1. : Alternate 1", which I would take to mean the words are used interchangeably. "Alternative" also means "offering or expressing a choice", which isn't accurate here; buyers in Japan vs. the US didn't have a choice in which cover they wanted to buy, generally speaking. And if we followed the releases listed at Discogs, the release history suggests the covers did "occur in turn", as the album was released and reissued in Japan, then the US, then Japan again, then the US again, and so on... which might make "alternate" more appropriate in this case. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Click on "alternate" as the first definition in the link you gave, then go down to full definition 1 and you'll find what I mentioned. It's here. As per my last – you insist, so that's fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "It was reassessed positively in the years following his retirement". The retirement was in 1975, which would be the same time as the contemporaneous reviews, so this needs to be revised.
According to the 1980 article included in the Alkyer, Enright & Koransky (2007) book, "positive critical revisionism has lately occurred" with regards to Agharta; that would be years after 1975, after the first series of reviews, which were unfavorable. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I see. Could it be made clearer, as we have a maximum 5-year period in which we know it had occurred? "in the years following his retirement" is vague and, if taken as 1976+, would incorporate the Jazz Forum and NYT reviews listed, which were from 1976. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
1976 would be the year after Davis had retired, not the years (and not an entire year after he retired, which was in fall 1975; Jazz Forum reviewed the album in February 1976 and NYT in April)... but I'll change it to "subsequent years" anyway. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "mid 1970s" should be hyphenated.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "working in the studio only sporadically and haphazardly; the 1974 releases Big Fun and Get Up with It compiled...". Could you spell this out more? e.g. if correct, that his only releases between 1972 and the Osaka concerts were mostly from old sessions.
There were other releases that compiled even older recordings (such as 1958 Miles and Jazz at the Plaza Vol. I, not to mention other live albums such as In Concert...) I don't wanna go beyond the source. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "physical pain and difficulty walking from health complications, including joint pain caused by sickle-cell anaemia...". How's 'physical pain and difficulty walking, caused by joint pain from sickle-cell anaemia...'?
The joints in the knees I would assume (see also NIH) Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry – I meant 'what do you think of that rewording'? Pain & difficulty walking count as health complications, so "health complications" jars. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "decimated ankles". Unusual use of 'decimate'. Is there a clearer word?
I've seen it used that way before (in reference to Bill Buckner's painfully arthritic knees), and it fits the definition IMO ("to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something))", as well as Davis' particular condition: his bones were more susceptible to damage because of his osteoporosis, so the accident not only broke the ankles, but left them significantly brittle (Chambers, Miles Davis: Grove Music Essentials) Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Taking that definition, 'destroyed ankles' is either unclear or too casual, while 'badly damaged ankles' is clear and not casual. How about reducing the ambiguity by using 'badly damaged ankles'? EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "painkillers, cocaine, and morphine, which combined with his alcohol and drug use". Surely the first part of the list describes "drug use": rephrase.
I specified "recreational drug use"; the first part of the list would more so be self-medication. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
If the sources back-up all of those being used for self-medication (cocaine is surprising, but I wouldn't know!), then that's ok. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there a better picture of the Hall? There are several structures in the one used (or point out in the caption which one is the hall).
I added "(left center)" to the caption; all the available pictures of the old Festival Hall show more than one structure, while the good ones (including those of the inside) are of the new Festival Hall rebuilt in 2012. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "later that same year". Need to be clear if it was 75 or 76.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Are the release dates in the Background section because they lead in to info on the album itself? If so, it's a bit unusual, but I quite like it in this instance.
Yes. I had no idea where else to put them that would read well, and it gets mentioning Pangaea/the evening concert out the way. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Composition 1st para. I'm confused by this, as it doesn't match the track listing given later. The differences for disc 2 are explained, but not for disc 1.
I didn't want to be redundant by mentioning "Maiysha" twice and it seems like something readers can figure out for themselves, but I did add to the audio sample caption that "Tatu" is part of the "Prelude" track. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Composition 2nd para and elsewhere. Better to cite source at the end of any sentence that contains a quotation. Or has policy changed on this?
I didn't to avoid cite overkill; I couldn't find anything at WP:CITE or MOS:QUOTE about exceptions to repetitive citing. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "but they played it faster as they grew rapport with each other and Davis live". "but they played it faster as the band's rapport grew"?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Davis, Cosey said, had the ability to "transmit thoughts and ideas like that to his frontline guy"". I think this can be cut; doing so would remove questions over what "frontline guy" refers to.
I paraphrased it slightly; Cosey uses it in the source in reference to the soloists in Davis' groups. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "playing – just". Be consistent throughout with either endashes or emdashes.
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "ran the drum machine through several different pedals", and guitars running earlier. Guitars was borderline ok, but a drum machine being run is too casual a use of words.
I replaced it with "processed". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "He arranged his guitar strings in different places". What does that mean?
I added "...on the fretboard". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "36 different". 'different' is not needed.
removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for picking out "E-flat tuning" from the 36? If so, state it; if not, cut the mention.
Hendrix happened to use it; mentioned. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "in the manner of the guitarist's". Too many guitarists! Hendrix or Cosey here?
I revised the sentence(s). Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Composition" seems an inadequate section heading given its content.
It's pretty broad I admit... how about "Composition and performance"? Dan56 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The "and" can be read as including or as separating, so works well for this context. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sonny Fortune pic: caption needs a final ".", I think. (Same for the audio sample?)
No, it's not a complete sentence (MOS:IMGSYN); I revised the sample caption. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
True – thanks! EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Pausing there... EddieHugh (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Continued...

  • Macero was known for doing lots of editing. Is there any info on what was done for this album?
Nothing specific about what he did unfortunately. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "on Earth's surface". Including the definite article is more natural to me.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "great cataclysmic". 'great' is redundant.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "On the back cover, a UFO was also depicted either...". 'A UFO was also depicted on the back cover, either...' could help, by putting the new topic of the para first in the sentence.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "." for the album cover caption, too.
It's a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence (MOS:IMGSYN). Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Any reason for "/5" for some reviews but stars for others?
MusicHound and Sputnikmusic didn't use stars, while the others did. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Agharta was originally panned by critics in 1975". Cut "originally", as it's unnecessary and could be read as meaning that it was panned again later.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact, as mentioned above, some of the reviews mentioned in this para are from 76, not 75, so this opening needs another rephrasing. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The reviews that were accessible were from '76, American reviews, the year it was released there... but the source cited verifies it was panned in 1975. I revised it to "was originally panned by critics" while the Lou Reed album part I revised to "...much in the same way Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music album had in 1975." Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "(1975) had that same year". "(1975)" is redundant.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Link "Q-tips" or use a more international term.
Cotton swabs. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "he stills cued". Typo somewhere.
Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Reflecting on his live". Probably best to slip in another 'Davis' ' here for "his".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cut apostrophe from "mid-1970's" in boxed quotation.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • nb 1 "the side three". Superfluous article.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Track listing. "Original double LP". Specify which one this is: Japanese/US ("original" implies Japanese, but it could be clearer).
The format reflects both actually, and specifying the country would beg the same question for the other listings, or at least not be consistent. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Miles Davis – composition, organ, trumpet". Composition is covered in the previous section, so cut.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Source 94 no longer has that info (the archived form does). Is maintaining the link correct?
The archive parameter wouldn't work without the original; I checked it off as "dead". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In refs: Bayles title has incorrect use of caps ("With", possibly "An"); Campbell em/endash again; Graham no caps for "At".
Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Campbell needs the 2 spaces removed. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The title at the page is rendered with the spaces ("Review Miles Davis - Agharta") Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It's conventional to make typographic changes to such things, as with capitalisation. We shouldn't have a spaced emdash. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Categories: isn't it a 1975 live album?
Corrected. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's all I've spotted up to now. It reads well (probably too many quotations, but that's hard to dodge), so I should be able to support. EddieHugh (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@EddieHugh:, I responded/made corrections. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking good. Responses to points still live (I count 6 of them) are indented above. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe I responded and addressed the rest, @EddieHugh:. Let me know if theres anything else. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
All done apart from the spaced emdash. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ladislaus I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a late 11th-century King of Hungary who consolidated the Christian monarchy. He is considered as "the incarnation of the late-medieval Hungarian ideal of chivalry". Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Béla_elnyeri_a_koronát.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info
Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Ladislav1_denar1.jpg should explicitly account for the copyright of the original work (PD-old-100)
This is a medieval denar issued by King Ladislaus I (r. 1077-95). --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Zaruke_hrvatskog_kralja_Zvonimira_Celestin_Medović.JPG needs a US PD tag, and given the current tag the given author cannot be correct
Added the name of the original Croatian painter who died in 1920. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: what is the source of the data conveyed by this map?
Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:King_St._Ladislaus.jpg: what is the status and source of the original work?
This is a 14th century reliquary (herma) of King Saint Ladislaus I of Hungar, owned and exhibited by Diocese of Győr. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Derzs4.jpg: given licensing and author info does not make sense
I don't understand your problem. This is a medieval mural in the Unitarian church of Dârjiu, Romania. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is, which is why the modern-day uploader is not the original author. For the purposes of Wikipedia, which uses primarily US law, taking a photo of a 2D work does not generate a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Szent_László_legenda_4.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:LaszloOradea.jpg.
Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • File:046CupolaSPietro.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, we need to account for the status of the building as well.
Sorry, but I could not find that image in this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears in the portal bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thanks. The building is St. Peter's Basilica, completed on 18 November 1626. I quote from Commons:Freedom of panorama: "Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960, the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. As noted above, Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer [...]". --Norden1990 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments. Tentative oppose. The current image review is almost identical to the image review at the first FAC. If you're having problems understanding reviewer comments, it's better to ask than to just resubmit a FAC with the same problems. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am having problems understanding the comments. Sorry, but an extremely simple-minded person like me cannot easily understand that a picture with copyright problems can be displayed in Commons, but the same picture cannot be used in articles. All the same, I will seek assistance. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not understanding "extremely simple-minded"; I certainly didn't say that. This isn't a comment about you, this is a comment about FAC. We have limited volunteer labor available. FAC can't possibly work if we ask all the volunteers to be willing to do the same work over and over again. Nikki is perhaps the most experienced image reviewer we have at FAC. Personally, I'm mystified by image requirements; I can't answer your question. But she knows what she's talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Commons, like Wikipedia, is a work in constant progress; just as Wikipedia articles can often be improved, so too can Commons image descriptions, and just as Wikipedia articles sometimes warrant deletion, so too do Commons images. That being said, I expect most of the images in this case fall into the first camp rather than the second. If you have specific questions about what improvements are needed, I'm happy to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am sure I am unable to understand WP policies about pictures, so I already sought community assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Striking oppose, in light of progress. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MPS1992

MPS1992, thank you for your excelent edits and thorough review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  • "jumped on Ladislaus's lance from a thorny bush and went up to his chest" - this feels slightly ambiguous. Does it mean it jumped onto his lance and then jumped onto his chest?
    • Thank you for your comment. I modified the text: [20]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Solomon was defeated in the battle" - this sentence feels slightly awkward tacked onto the end of the paragraph. Perhaps it would read better if made longer with a little more detail.
  • "Upon Helen's demand" - I have rephrased this to "At Helen's demand", but, do the sources support such a strong wording? In other words, could it be "at Helen's request" rather than "at Helen's demand"?
  • In 1090, Ladislaus had a meeting with the bishop of Prague, an old friend. Do these two facts really add anything? Presumably he met various bishops and other important personages quite often; did the meeting have any significance or significant outcome? It seems out of place amidst military actions of long-lasting import.
  • Similarly, " The same year, he wrote to Oderizius, Abbot of Monte Cassino in Italy, about his conquest of "Sclavonia"" appears to be inserted almost randomly into a paragraph that is otherwise almost entirely about the invasion of Croatia. This sentence should be moved to the following paragraph.
    • Modified: [24] ("Sclavonia" was identical with Croatia in the context). Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • " The occupation of Croatian territories resulted in a dispute, because..." - this is awkwardly worded. Perhaps it could be recast on its own or together with preceding sentences.
  • "because Bács was situated closer to the Hungarian-Byzantine border" - it would be good to make a little clearer how this is related to the needs of the English refugees and the moving of the sees.
    • Deleted: [26], wl to "New England" in the "See also" section: [27]. (Makk's theory is not closely connected to Ladislaus and is only a POV). Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • " Historian Gábor Klaniczay writes that the whole story was probably invented during the reign of King Béla III of Hungary, who was actually planning to lead a crusade to the Holy Land in the 1190s.[100] However, Ladislaus did plan to invade Bohemia" - the article seems here to decide that Klaniczay is wrong, and says so in Wikipedia's voice. What makes one source right and the other (later) one clearly wrong?
    • Modified, but I am not sure, I understand your concern: [28]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I think I got confused between the two campaigns here. It looks fine now. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • " Ladislaus's family and relatives who are mentioned in the article are shown in the following family tree" - I think this sentence should be removed entirely, but I presume the citation at the end of it indicates the attribution for the family tree diagram. Perhaps the attribution could be included in a caption. The note with the asterisk is probably unnecessary.
    • Modified, but I am not sure, I understand your concern: [29]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • bondsman should be wikilinked to something relevant. Neither of the items on the disambiguation page for bondsman are suitable. Perhaps it is slavery or perhaps it is something more subtle on the Russian model.
  • "  a bondsman, named "Tekus, son of the craftsman Dénes", opened Ladislaus's tomb" - this is slightly confusing for the reader. It should be made more clear that this was part of the canonization ceremony, and not that Tekus took it into his head to vandalize the tomb one day.
  • "the texts about Ladislaus's life and reign in 14th-century Hungarian chronicles, were written during Coloman's rule" - Coloman lived c. 1070 – 3 February 1116 (that is, from the 11th to the 12th century) so how can a 14th-century chronicle have been written during his rule?

I have made these edits. MPS1992 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think these now all look OK, thank you for making the changes. I greatly enjoyed finding out about the very English-dominated nature of the Varangian Guard in this era, which I had not known about before. One stylistic point and one minor point:
There are substantial quotes from primary sources and other antiquated sources at various points in the text. I don't know if the Manual of Style permits attributed quotes of out-of-copyright sources of this length, though they seem good to me. But, some of the later ones seem to have their text in italics, whereas the earlier ones do not. They should be consistent. (All of the work names seem to be in italics already, which is consistent and is good.)
Thank you for your comments. I changed the last two quotes (I preferred non-italics for them). Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Second, and this is very minor and perhaps more nuanced, is the Illuminated Chronicle, dating from 1358 or later, really a primary source about a king who died over 250 years earlier? Perhaps it is a primary source for views taken by Hungarians in later centuries, I'm not sure. MPS1992 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
In Hungarian historiography the Illuminated Chronicle is treated as a primary source, because it is the earliest copy of the so-called "Old Gesta", a chronicle which was written in the late 11th century and later modified and expanded. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes sense. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
All of my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about American model and actress Emily Ratajkowski. This is my final attempt to get this promoted in time for consideration at WP:TFA on her 25th birthday (June 7). Currently TFA is scheduled out to May 25. FAC4 was closed with a comment ending "I would expect to see deep work done to address concerns about sourcing and prose outlined by Ealdgyth, SlimVirgin, TrueHeartSusie3, and others [In FAC3 and FAC4]." I have been editing the article furiously in the last 2 weeks. It now stands at 18965 characters of readable prose. For comparison notice how much content has been changed/removed since the following milestones:

22080 character 21:26, 26 April 2016 version when FAC4 ended
23556 character 06:41, 26 April 2016 version last comment at FAC4
23805 character 23:42, 24 April 2016 version when I started actively chopping down the article
24671 character 12:11, 20 April 2016 version when I responded to TrueHeartSusie3 comment on the article's length on April 20 in FAC4,
24541 character 04:13, 18 April 2016 version when I started FAC4,
25889 character 13:02, 9 April 2016 version when FAC3 ended.

I am especially hopeful that my revisions are satisfactory since both Drmies and Linguist111 have given unsolicited thanks (e.g., here) for my edits to the page in the last week, which I hope is a sign that my recent edits have substantially changed the page in a good way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Notifying

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Note to FAC coordinators (Ian Rose and Laser brain): The article currently has an open GOCE. In FAC4, Laser commented that "an article with an open GOCE request strikes me as admittedly unprepared". In this case, the open GOCE was made during FAC4. Given all the changes I have made to the article since then (noted above), I don't think the open GOCE is an admission of unpreparedness. It remains open only because 1.) it is at the top of the GOCE queue and likely to be addressed promptly, 2.) I don't think a GOCE would hurt the nomination, and 3.) This is now a time-sensitive nomination. If either of you thinks I should close the GOCE in order to go forward, I am willing to do so. Also, I am willing to suspend the nomination (hopefully for no more than 48 hours) if a GOCE is considered disruptive to the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Drmies[edit]

  • I will just say that I think Tony has done a good job cutting this down. I think more needs to be cut. A 91k article on a minor, minor figure, with minor parts in maybe two notable movies and a few TV things, with 205 references from mostly the entertainment press, and six full paragraphs on her "activism and advocacy" which, while verified, is minor in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think that this is the kind of thing we ought to be doing. Yes, the stuff is verified, and well-organized--but it's stuff, just stuff. I don't want to start a fight but FA criteria 4... BTW, yes, I thanked Tony for an edit that pruned the article some, and I will gladly continue to do so. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • this edit was the one you thanked me for. It took the article to 19447 characters of readable prose. I have not often seen people discuss the wikitext size of articles at FAC. I think it is the readable prose count that matters. Yes she is a low-importance actress. The question is not whether her acting career has been impressive. Note that no one known primarily as a model has achieved FA for some reason. Should we really discount entertainment press sources so much that a model cannot achieve FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I do my thing, you do yours. She is a low-importance actress, and devoting this much space to a low-importance actress, with low-level sources (not a single book, I don't think), and then putting it in the FA window for the Wikipedia shoppers, sorry, I have a hard time with that. I've made similar comments before on GA reviews and, I guess, all over the place, not just in K-pop articles. I made a suggestion or two. She [well, the article] can get to FA status without 205 references and with less text and less table porn. I think it's high time that we take item 4 seriously--not just here, but also, and perhaps especially, in GA reviews. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
        • At GA, there seems to be no relation between importance and the viability of a nomination. Thus, articles of all levels of importance seem to be viewed as deserving of the same level of detail. However, here everyone wants to say that this subject is low-importance and thus less worthy of consideration for FA and less worthy of editorial attention. I.e., since she is not an award-winning actress, she should not be detailed on WP. At GA, there is no such relationship. Here it seems that WP:WIAFA 4 is used to say that an article is being detailed more than a higher importance article that would be more deserving of that level of detail. There is a clear disconnect between the interpretation of WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
      • P.S. I believe I had addressed all the source review issues prior to closing FAC3, but the reviewer had not evaluated my responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Drmies, one of your reservations was "six full paragraphs on her 'activism and advocacy'". I have been looking at the other actress FACs and have reorganized this content. I was wondering what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Numerounovedant[edit]

The article has little issue with the prose and its quality and is well written. However, IMO it does not have enough substance to work with. Most of the article is self analytical, it talks more about itself rather than the subject. Review after review for minor roles, sub sections which barely have a purpose and the unnecessary table. I will have to look at further such articles to actually see how much of this article is even required. Even the references are cluttered and not required in places. Have no issues with the prose though. NumerounovedantTalk 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Vensatry that the article muddles with the tense at times. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
As I said there has to be more to it. All the FAs that I referred to use past tense. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger Regardless, I didn't mean to point out at the use of past/present, it is the variation that bothered me. NumerounovedantTalk 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, I did catch a few wrong tenses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:MOSTENSE gets very confusing. Take the following consecutive sentences: "Piers Morgan states that Ratajkowski's form of feminism is a misguided affront to true feminism,[182] labeling it pseudo-feminist gibberish.[183] After Morgan wrote that "Feminism Is Dead", the Chicago Tribune's Heidi Stevens as well as Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter and The Daily Telegraph's Helen Pankhurst said Ratajkowski neither killed nor bolstered feminism.[184][185]" Ratajkowski's feminism is an ongoing thing criticism about it are in the present. However, the following sentence is about a particular time in the past that must be written in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, @FrB.TG: and Vensatry, Looking back at the history of tenses in this article and my confusion/belief about how to interpret WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE, I see that in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3, GRuban complained about tenses on 03:00, 30 March 2016‎. This led to my own March 30 revisions to the page here and here based on MOSTENSE and FICTENSE. At some point GRuban was satisfied with these changes. I asked Twofingered Typist to consider MOSTENSE (among other issues) in the copyedit. He never actually made tense changes in his copyedit and I assumed this was a ratification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
N.B., as I have stated elsewhere, I believe that WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE mean that we should consider films ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean it loses focus a lot, instead of focusing on the subject it talks about just "stuff". Some instances just from the "Leading Roles" section-
Around the time of its release, Ratajkowski was prominent in the media with cover appearances on Grazia France, British GQ, harper by Harper's Bazaar, InStyle UK, and InStyle Australia as well as a role as a 2015 MTV Video Music Awards presenter. The British GQ cover story was photographed by Mario Testino, who produced a short film for the magazine's website." - How is the latter part important?
To my knowledge she has worked with 5 photographers who are notable enough to have their own WP articles. I wanted to work in Testino's name as I have worked in the other 5. He not only photographed the cover story, but also produced a video used on the magazine's website. I thought this was a good way to mention him. I am open to suggestions on how to work in his name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I just realized it was unclear the short film was about Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly my point. There are a couple more instances. NumerounovedantTalk 05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Ratajkowski's We Are Your Friends performance received mixed reviews. She played Stanford University dropout Sophie, the love interest of Efron's character and girlfriend/personal assistant of Wes Bentley's character. Ty Burr of The Boston Globe and Nell Minow of Beliefnet are unimpressed. Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny of RogerEbert.com praise her performance. Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Morris note Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal previously seen in "Blurred Lines". Duralde of TheWrap states that Sophie was a thin role (as did Burr), while Christopher Gray of Slant Magazine described Sophie as a muse. Bilge Ebiri of Vulture.com says that Ratajkowski's role takes a back seat to the love triangle's central Efron/Bentley relationship. - Aren't those a little too many? Not to mention they add little value to the article, most of them have no praise description of what the critics actually thought of the performance, the rest just describe the role, and not the performance. Again an example of the analysis of the film maybe, but definitely nothing to do with Ratajkowski. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
In regards to too many, the article currently includes all 11 critics whose reviews were mentioned by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and who both have their own WP articles and whose reviews were in media outlets with their own WP articles. As you may have noticed you are at FAC5. I have been under pressure to shorten the article. If you look at the version when FAC3 ended, you will see that I described the critical commentary more fully in that version. It sounds like you are suggesting restoring some of that. I could make it look shorter by not mentioning each affiliated media outlet. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are examples of prior content that was removed: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[130] Nell Minow is also unimpressed.[131] Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny praise her performance with descriptors such as "entrancing", "sweet", "sexy" and "sensible".[132][133][134]
In fact it once (23:10, 15 March 2016) said: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe described her performance in the role as "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[124] Nell Minow was also unimpressed.[125] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing", while noting her physical contribution to the film.[126] Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet".[127] Glenn Kenny was satisfied with her presentation of her "sweet, sexy, and sensible" character.[128]
Numerounovedant, can you tell me what you think might need to be restored?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suggest bringing down the number of reviews based on their relevance. What good are 11 reviews if none actually talk about her performance. I'll go through all the reviews personally and suggest the ones which I believe are more relevant. Give me an hour for this. NumerounovedantTalk 05:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So, the review with 1) Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "surpassingly dull" makes perfect sense (in context to a negative review), I would restore it. 2) Instead of saying Nell Minow was also unimpressed you can quote him saying that she "does more posing than acting" and merge it into the previous sentence. 3) I would also merge Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing" & Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet" into one sentence 4) Glenn Kenny doesn't make any critical commentary so I would remove it. Rest I would keep Robbie Collin's part but remove all the remaining commentary because it simply talks about the role and not the performance. NumerounovedantTalk 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not clear to me why we don't want to describe the role as thin or point out that her first leading role is not actually part of the dominant relationship to clarify things for the reader.--16:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean to completely drop the idea, but extensive critical commentary just on the role isn't the way. You could mention the former review which calls the role thin, but the latter about her role in the relationship really doesn't belong here. The article is about her not the film or its characters. Facts like these are better suited in the film's article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the love triangle comment to the film article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I restored the thin comment (Basically as it was before).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that each fact of the article is substantiated with a ref or two. Can you point out examples references that do not support facts. Maybe two or three.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
From the "Leading Roles" (again not exhaustive) - The second paragraph is not at all informative, and has atleast 6 references thats tand for nothing, because the corresponding text does not offer anything.
I think we have gotten that paragraph restored to significance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Rise to fame- "Much commentary on Ratajkowski's debut focuses on her sex appeal,[68][69][70] but some note that her small role as a "duplicitous and manipulative former student" is critical.[71][72]" Again, nothing about her performances and cluttered refrences. Isn't there a source that talks about the round up? & "Her role as Adrian Grenier's character, Vincent Chase's visually appealing love interest is described in sexist ways in the press,[85][86][87] with mentions of her as the object of multiple affections.[88][89][90]" - Too many references that talk about the same thing. (Not even a significant detail or addition to the article) NumerounovedantTalk 16:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Am I suppose to support a "Much commentary" claim with one comment. I thought three was appropriate for such a claim unless you just think the claim should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No, you are supposed to cite an article that says so. 2-3 articles about the comments barely support the claim for "Much commentary". For an instance, see the discussion on this page. I really think that such claims need just one source that says so, instead of multiple sources actually talking about it. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
While I supported a "Some note" fact with two. I thought this was appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No it's not both the "much commentary" , "Some noted" border WP:WEASEL. You rather state names, (if the obsevation is vital to the article) or remove the claims. The latter is the case here (IMO). NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Some named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The round up? What does that mean? Commentary on her roles thus far is somewhat limited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
A round up would be an article that sums up her performance, or rather attributes an adjective to it which can be used in the article. For instance a RT consensus. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Is one ref considered better than three?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You may want to refer to WP:CITEKILL (last paragraph from the lead), if you still believe all the references are required try WP:CITEBUNDLE. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
What is meant by not a significant detail or addition?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
In this article for instance I would consider - "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[144][145] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[146][147] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds.[148]" to be a "significant detail", whereas "She reports receiving a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." - would qualify as unnecessary/"not a significant detail". NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been trying to cut out unnecessary details and welcome it when you point to them. In regards to the Entourage summary, is it unnecessary to say she was the object of multiple affections or that she was viewed in sexist ways by the press?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at the table of contents, I am not sure what the multiple unnecessary subsections are since there are so few subsections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"Early leading roles" - She has had just one film to her credit in the section. I don't know how much upcoming projects account for a "Leading roles" section, they better be separated as upcoming projects and the entire section be merged into the previous one. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I created this section after her first leading role and the early development of Cruise which seems to be a leading role. Her more recent upcoming projects are not leading so I think you are right to merge this back. I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In defense of the table, there was probably a time when a discography or filmography was considered an unnecessary table. We have never had a person notable primarily as a model achieve FA. Thus, I thought I would try to assemble a table detailing her modelling history. A coverography could be shown to be as notable as a filmography is for an actress or a discography is as a musician because there are multiple reliable sources that present the details that I present in the table. I am not just cobbling stuff together. You can go out to the internet and find this stuff fairly easily, IMO. Models.com does the most comprehensive job at covering this, but fashionmodeldirectory.com does a decent job at covering these and there are other sources. Since we are suppose to summarize the secondary sources, this type of table is as interesting an element of summarizing secondary sources for a model as a filmography or discography might be. Its importance to a biography is similar to Template:2010–19 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit in the sense that for people more notable for things other than modelling it is considered irrelevant, but for models it is considered important. Sure a coverography for an actress is not really an important thing, but for a model, it is somewhat defining.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Some other observations-

"Ratajkowski was told that modelling could lead to an acting career." - It is again very Weasely, not to say uninformative.
I don't think WP:WEASEL really applies, but I have removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models", she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." - Really doesn't belong in the career section.
I am not sure where to move it. See what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Either personal life or media image NumerounovedantTalk 12:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It is in media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
" As they touch, they reveal each other. Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video." - Does not belong in her article, maybe the music video's article.
"Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Alonso Duralde of TheWrap, note Ratajkowski's early disappearance from the film." - How is that important?
Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the "March 2013 GQ Türkiye" images should be reduced in size. They are really sitracting this way.
180px-->160px.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am leaning towards Weak Support (after the remaining queries have been addressed), but I suggest a thorough source review. I wish I could do it myself, but I am afraid that I have prior commitments. Ping me after the source review and I'll be happy to help further. Good Luck! NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, I am watching the page, but ping me when the source review is done. I think it's really going to help the article. Good work though. NumerounovedantTalk 06:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Numerounovedant, I just noticed that Catherine Zeta-Jones is getting a lot of support at FAC with a lead that includes the phrase "Zeta-Jones initially established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal..." We have wiped out a lot of content supporting a similar claim for Ratajkowski's first two roles. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so as far as Zeta-Jones' article goes it had certain substantiated statements, with full commentary. While that could be a fine addition to the article, the discussion here was more of he said: she said: sort. I wouldn't mind if you add a well substantiated claim on her sex appeal with some actual commentary. For instance, the comment on her rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal here. NumerounovedantTalk 05:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • GRuban, Since you were the original person who pointed out that the article had WP:MOSTENSE issues (and were an interested discussant in FAC3 and FAC4), could you please comment on your thoughts on the new changes to the tense presentation and state whether you have an opinion on the vastly changed version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Twofingered Typist, since you were the most recent WP:GOCE copyeditor (and a commenter at FAC4), could you comment on the changes to the tense presentation and state whether you have an opinion on the vastly changed version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger The tense presentation seems fine to me. I have fixed some inconsistencies in the punctuation. I notice a lot of excessive detail has been trimmed so that the article is much more concise and to the point. I'd say it is in very good shape. I still question the need for a box-form listing of covers she's done - this does not appear in other models' articles. You've picked some highlight examples, leave it at that. A complete listing, like listing quote good or bad for an appearance in a film, is excessive.Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Review by FrB.TG[edit]

Nothing of major concern so far (my review is only till early life section). FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposing your proposal at several FACs, including Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Stone/archive1, I would like to say that reviews should be in past tense as they are events that have passed. Besides, I have never seen an article to do so (oh and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a poor justification). FrB.TG (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I second that. NumerounovedantTalk 15:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
FrB.TG see commments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3 and above regarding MOS:TENSE and WP:FICTENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if I agree with you, I can't say that using past tense is wrong. I would like to hear from @WP:FAC coordinators: on this matter. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I am going to start a discussion at WT:FILM.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Using present tense when describing what a reviewer said is incorrect. I would not consider that an actionable request as a coordinator. As a reviewer, I would oppose any article using such language. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tony. It looks much better with the past tense. I will add further comments very soon. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
FrB.TG, Thanks. It would be much better for me if you could add those comments in the next 48 hours. I have little free time on Friday through Monday because I drive for Uber those days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be of trivial tone as other reviewers have taken note of, but I don't expect anything else in the biography of a model. FrB.TG (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Vensatry (a quick scan)[edit]

  • Alt text should conform to WP:ALT (talking about the infobox image). Add the same for other images as well.
  • "Currently, she has various acting engagements in development." We usually don't document current events in the lead.
  • "At birth, her mother and father were aged 39 and 45, respectively,[6] and unmarried" You introduce her parents with ages, why not with names?
  • "Ratajkowski is of Polish, German, Irish, and Polish Jewish descent" You need to clarify this since the previous para says both of her parents are Amercians. Further, the following sentence says she considers herself a 'Polish Israeli'.
    • I watch two articles where ethnicity is constantly a topic of debate. Stana Katic and this one. Here there are two parts of the article that seem to have a lot of different people weighing in and tinkering. In the LEAD the current consensus is "an American model and actress. Born in London to American parents..." Sometimes it is "British-born American" In the body, the section you point out is often in flux. I do not know policies regarding ethnicity and just let those who think they know tinker. Being American means they were born in the United States or born to American citizens abroad. It does not mean that they were Mayflower descendants. I have removed the German reference that seems unsourced. I don't know what else to clarify and it is sort of beyond my expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about the 'Polish Israeli' part. You have explained that her mother was raised Jewish, but we don't have references to Poland and Israel. —Vensatry (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The Little Match Girl points to the short story.
  • What's 'unwanted' role?
    • She was attempting to avoid certain types of roles. I think there is some reading that needs to be done between the lines here. I guess the sources don't actually say unwanted, but there were clearly types of roles she did not want. I am not sure what correction to make. I looked at this phrase quite a bit when pruning the article prior to FAC5. I was not sure what to do, but advice is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models",[32] she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." This reads like an editorial.
  • "Previously, Ratajkowski had been cast in two other music videos; "Fast Car" by Taio Cruz,[33] which was released on November 5, 2012,[34] and Maroon 5's "Love Somebody",[2] which was released two months after "Blurred Lines".[2][9]" The first semi-colon could well be replaced by a colon. Replace the comma after November 5, 2012 and with a semicolon.
  • When was "Blurred Lines" released?
    • The article notes the date that the video was made public (March 20), which was a different date than when the audio of the song was released (for public download or for radio airplay—not sure which) on March 26. I don't think the March 26 date is relevant to this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Outside the lead, the first para of the 'Music video performances' section is the one that first talks about the video. But I'm not able to find the date (year). —Vensatry (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Grazia France - Is it a French edition?
    • Yes. This is typical magazine naming conventions I believe. Either French Grazia or Grazia France are both acceptable as I understand it. Would you suggest a change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, include 'France' in the pipe as well. —Vensatry (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ratajkowski enjoys freedom of sexual expression "while still being a feminist"[77] and is outspoken about using her celebrity to fight the social implications of supporting the empowerment of women and sexuality" This sentence desperately needs commas.
  • The filmography table is unsourced. Andrew's Alteration and A Year and a Day are not discussed anywhere in the article.
    • I don't see filmography tables source in Kalki Koechlin, Freida Pinto, Emma Stone. What are you asking me to do? Neither of those pre-fame films is sourceable to my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Because those articles, presumably, have all films described (with refs.) in the body, which isn't the case here. —Vensatry (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
        • This is true for Stone and Koechlin. However, for Pinto, the first film is omitted from the Filmography. Is that the proper result.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Slumdog Millionaire? It's discussed in detail with in the body. —Vensatry (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Role missing for The Spoils Before Dying in the table.
As mentioned above to Numerounovedant, Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to initiate a discussion at WP:FILM because this should set a precedent for future articles as well. —Vensatry (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Vensatry, I have tried to reverse myself. Please let me know what the current status of your consideration of this article is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, TonyTheTiger. I made some edits[32][33] to put Emily's article that much closer to a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back in a couple of days and I will be happy to !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I noticed that you made the cats fully alphabetical rather than having traditionally leading (birth year and living people) cats first. Please comment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, TonyTheTiger. Is there a MoS guideline for putting them out of order like that? I just do what makes sense to me, which happens to be alphabetically. I always put the category with the pipe in it at the top, and the rest I do an alphasort on. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Category_order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax, have you been following the commentary there?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
No, but I will now. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, TonyTheTiger. There are at least three sections that lack images yet the Career section has images that are creating a corridor around the text in that section. See what can be done about that. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to add more images from Commons:Category:Emily Ratajkowski? I hadn't because they are almost all from the same 2013 date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, TonyTheTiger. I would suggest reducing the number of images in the Career section to avoid the image corridor around the text. I will look around for other images later for other sections. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I have rearranged the images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Support – Happy Birthday, Emily! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Some concerns:

  • The nude image is non-free and in my view its use here doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
    The rationale says the image provides "critical visual information" but doesn't say what that is. The argument in FAC 3 seemed to be that, because a man liked an image of a naked woman enough to offer her another job being naked, we must see the image to be able to understand. Using that reasoning, if a film director offers someone a part based on their performance in a previous film, we could claim fair use of that film to help us understand the director's point of view. Or if someone gets a second book contract because their first book was successful, we could claim fair use of that book to "significantly increase readers' understanding" of why the second contract was offered.
    The rest of the non-free rationale should be removed: "Ratajkowski has advocated against censoring female nudity (especially her own) and as the w:WP:BLP subject would take offense to censorship of her nudity." [34]
  • The horizontal images in the "Music video performances" section look crowded and squeeze the text. Because of the shadow, the lipliner image looks as though ​something is being smeared on her. The semi-nude image is ​un​pleasant. The captions – "receiving hair spray," "getting lipliner​" – could use a rewrite.
    It isn't clear that the video from which the images derive is free (see Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). It was uploaded to Vimeo as cc-by in March 2013 by Eric Longden, who filmed it with Mike Marasco. [35] Is Longden the copyright holder​? ​The video ​opens with "Tony Kelly for GQ Türkiye" (see Tony Kelly)​, so I would expect one of them, probably GQ, to hold the copyright. ​​GQ Türkiye uploaded it to YouTube in April 2013 with the standard licence. [36] Longden did the same in September 2013. [37] Someone should ask Longden to confirm the release and that he's the copyright holder (and/or contact GQ), then forward the details to permissions.

SarahSV (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Confirming here for the benefit of the delegates that the cameraman and photographer referred to above (Longden and Kelly) have said the video has not been released. This affects several images and clips derived from it (Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). I've forwarded the emails to permissions, but there's a backlog. In this article, it concerns the three images in the Music video performances section and the two clips in Media image. SarahSV (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The images have been deleted. SarahSV (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand your issues to be the following:
  1. Images fail WP:NFCC #8 because
    1. Reasoning is that "man likes random nudity which led to more nudity so we need to show the reader the random nudity"
    2. FUR needs clarification
      Expanded--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    3. FUR content unnecessary
      Content irrelevant to WP:NFCC removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Images crowd text.
    Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Lipliner image looks smeared
    We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Semi-nude image is unpleasant.
    We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. WP:CAPTIONs need to be rewritten.
    I could use some advice. I am not sure what the problem is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Image free use unclear (Who is copyright holder?.)
    INeverCry and czar reviewed the images at Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot. As I understand it, cinematographer, publisher and subject each have some sort of rights, but Ratajkowski's rights are merely {{personality rights}} in this case. I do not understand why a cinematographer can release his copyright and make something free without the consent of the publisher. Thus, I am not sure what verification I am being told to needs to be sought. Given my level of expertise, I would feel more comfortable if someone else sought this clarification or would give me a precise question/set of questions to ask.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    The copyright holder is the only one that can release the video, so you need to find out who that is and make sure they understand the implications of releasing it. In the case of GQ, they will understand, but it might have to come from their legal department. Links here to email addresses for GQ, Tony Kelly and Eric Longden. [38][39][40] See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a suggested email the copyright holder needs to send. SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    SarahSV, as I understand it there is no claim that GQ has relinquished its copyright or that Kelly has released his. The only relevant inquiry is whether Longden has released his and then we need to determine if his act is sufficient. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    No, that's not correct. It is most likely that either Condé Nast (GQ) or Tony Kelly or Eric Longden owns the copyright, not all three. You need to find out which one does. Then you need to ask the copyright owner for a release under a Creative Commons licence and forward that release to permissions. It seems to me unlikely that the copyright holder would release an expensive photoshoot so that others could make commercial use of it. But of course I could be wrong about that; perhaps they had their reasons. But first, you need to find out who owns the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    SlimVirgin, I know I am not qualified to address the issues of the copyright. However, I do know enough about the issue to tell by your response that you do not understand the issues of the copyright either. You speak of the copyright as if it is a singular thing. There is not one copyright holder for a published work. There are typically 3 or 4. May I ask if you are even a qualified image reviewer because someone who does not understand copyrights well enough to understand this might serve WP well to step aside of an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Clarification needs to come from permissions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I've heard back from Longden and he is not the copyright holder. I'll forward the correspondence to permissions. SarahSV (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    • SlimVirgin, I repeat. There is not one copyright holder. There are sort of layers (depending on the medium think about a subject/subject creator, a performer, a recorder and a publisher). The first copyright is the subject creator. I.e., sculptures are always copyrighted in certain jurisdictions. Works of music are often copyrighted by a lyricist and a songwriter or teams thereof. Meanwhile, people are not copyrighted in the United States, but {{personality rights}} are different by jurisdiction. It may be the case that a human subject owns a copyright to photos of them in Turkey. However, I doubt it given the number of photos that we have of Category:Turkish footballers. Given that human subjects in Turkey are probably not copyrightable per se, the next level of copyright is determined by who did the work. A photographer/videographer always owns the copyright to his own work (consider the Monkey selfie issue), but he may be restricted from releasing it if the subject has a copyright. Given what is in Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot, Longden may very well want to take back his released copyright, but if he is in fact the photographer, he can not unless at the time he released the work he did not have the right. Of course, he may have given up his copyright, but if he is the photographer he has/had a copyright. I.e., if he had signed over his copyright to Condé Nast (GQ) as part of a publication contract or performed the work as an employee of Condé Nast, he may have surrendered his copyright. Is he claiming he was not the photographer, that he was an employee of Condé Nast or that he signed over the photographer copyright to Condé Nast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The director of the video has separately confirmed that it is not under a free licence. It appears that the Vimeo tagging as free was just a mistake. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I believe you are talking about Tony Kelly when you say director. Kelly is not required to release his copyright in order for the filmmaker to release his AFAIK. I don't think he was ever a concern for the image reviewers. Unless we are going to claim Longden's input was like that of the monkey and that Kelley has a copyright over the work he directed with Longden, we do not need Kelly's consent or release. Longden is pressing the buttons and has a copyright.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • All this misses the point. The question is whether anyone has released this video. There are three entities that we assume might be in a position to do so: Condé Nast/GQ; the director; and/or the cameraman. The director and cameraman have both said the video has not been released.
    When we add images to FACs nowadays, we're expected to do due diligence. Sometimes it's obvious on Vimeo, YouTube or Flickr that the person posting a release is the copyright holder and really did intend to release it, but often it isn't. In this case, it's a red flag that someone would release an expensive photoshoot so that other commercial entities can use it for profit.
    The safest thing to do in these cases is to email them, ask if they own the copyright, and make sure they understand what a Creative Commons licence entails (namely that anyone can use their work for any reason). When that is confirmed, if you forward the correspondence to permissions, then it's on file that the release was confirmed and understood. SarahSV (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If the Vimeo account was his, it does not matter whether he now says he intended to release his copyright. He probably did not expect to see his work all over wikipedia. I am sure he did not expect to see his work posted on WP at Hair rollers, Lip liner, and so on (See the what links here link for Ratajkowski). He could now say he did not want to release it as an attempt to take back his release, but I believe it is too late.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We're not supposed to take advantage of people who have made mistakes. Someone might have an intern upload something and add the wrong tag. Or they might believe they have released it but they don't own the copyright. Or they do own the copyright but didn't realize what releasing it meant. That's why it's important to email people before uploading if there is room for doubt, particularly if it's for a featured article.
    I had a photographer release an image to me once of a person, a very clear release, after I had explained to her what it meant. It was a good photograph, except that she had added a strong orange colour to the person's face. I removed the colour, uploaded the image and added it to an article. She immediately emailed me to say I did not have her permission to remove the orange, and she was upset because she thought it only looked good with the added colour. In fact it looked very strange. I therefore deleted the image and regarded the release as invalid, because it was obvious that she had not understood what a release meant, and I didn't want her to be upset. SarahSV (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest taking the lot (the category) to deletion review on Commons if the video's license is being challenged. There are all kinds of different rights depending on the artistic direction, the cinematography, music, country-specific, etc. and of course whether the cinematographer had the rights to release (was it work for hire?) The "license review" on Commons exists to confirm the status of a release on an external site—so while of course we cannot check the rights situation of every release, it is at least plausible that Longden's official channel has the rights to relicense under Creative Commons. But based on SV's inquiries, this warrants more discussion on Commons I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 01:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Czar, as I wrote below, Longden said that someone his end chose the wrong licence by mistake. SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It may not be that simple. The CC license is irrevocable, so our own diligence and grace period separates mistake from regret. But this aside, ticket:2016052410026559 says that GQ owns the copyright and that Longden only has creative rights, so the video would not be his to relicense. I've opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot czar 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Your NFCC issue continues to have nothing to do with either WP:NFCC or the responsive WP:FUR. In response to my revised FUR, you continue to assert that "non-free images must satisfy NFCC" without explanation-19:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) There are three main points to the FUR. If any of the three are valid it does satisfy NFCC. As an image reviewer, you must communicate why the points are invalid. 1.) The image is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that the image was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the image.
What you need to explain is something like 1.) The image looks not much different from what I would have imagined a fame-propelling magazine cover to look like and adds nothing. 2.) I found the composition to be about what I would have expected of such a magazine cover and the image adds nothing or maybe I found the composition to be overhyped and unspectacular enough that I can not believe The NYT expended any space describing it in various ways. 3.) I found her appearance to be about what I would have imagined based on such a statement and it added nothing.
If you can get back on topic (since you revel in discussing the nudity of the image), and cogently explain why none of these points are valid, we can move forward on whether the image should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • N.B. On June 25, you noted that you detailed your objection to the FUR on May 24. However, I am asking you to respond to my May 25 responses to your concern. The pre-May 25 FUR is no longer at issue and you have not made any statements anywhere about the current May 25 FUR, which is based largely on the 3 issues I have been pointing out. This is another example of your lack of fair bahavior. During an FAC the nominator generally responds to concerns and you are suppose to evaluate those responses. You continue to be unwilling to discuss my responses to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by GRuban[edit]

Addressed comments
  • "Ratajkowski staged theatrics for her family as a child." Heh, heh, heh. As a parent, my immediate reaction was "and what child doesn't?" I recommend "shows" or "theatrical performances" or something else that isn't just a synonym for "tantrum".
  • Also link Cruise; as a major release it should have an article soon, so even a red link is worth it. Similarly In Darkness, and, probably, Easy. (Do most Netflix shows get articles?)
  • Finally add at least one word of description to each of the former two - are they films? Stage plays? TV shows? Miniseries? Music videos?
  • She said: "... there's different kinds of nudity, and ... the video was tasteful ..." - I would remove the last ellipsis, and put a period after the last quote.
  • "Ratajkowski has a variety of upcoming roles." - As of when? Assume you get hit by a truck and no one edits this article for the next three years. Will this still make sense? Add "as of 2016" or something.
  • "Cruise, which is written and directed Robert Siegel." Add "by".
  • "Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9] and claimed that the producers "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting",[48] using humor and sarcasm." - the way you have it, with the last 4 words outside the quotes and after the comma means that Ratajkowski used humor and sarcasm in claiming that the producers made the video more interesting. Is that what you meant to write? I'm guessing not...
    • Actually, if I recall my GMAT preparation correctly, the referent would be assumed to be the closest subject, which in this case is the producers. The sentence is actually correct I believe. I might wrong and the referent is the closest noun. However, Ratajkowski, is the most remote subject and noun. If I changed the sentence to read "Using humor and sarcasm, Ratajkowski..." then it would mean she used humor and sarcasm.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Beckham's famous catch from 2014" - if it's famous, do we have an article on it, or the game it was in?
  • Re: SarahSV's image review. First, a disclaimer - I found the various videos the screenshots came from, and uploaded the first few screenshots, though Tony has since surpassed my work. I kind of agree with Sarah's sexism objection to the magazine cover from previous reviews, but won't oppose because on it; it's an editorial decision, and it's at least arguable as appearing nude is a non-negligible part of what Ratajkowski does. However, I do object to the assertion that before we can use the images from Eric Longden's video, we need to have Eric Longden write OTRS. The entire point of putting a Creative Commons tag on media is that other people can use it without first having to write the author and ask for permission! If you are doubting that Longden has the rights to the video, well, we can hardly demand that he upload his contract, then hire lawyers to go over it. He's the film maker, if he says he can put it under CC-BY, then we need take his word for it. After all, that is exactly what an email to OTRS would be, just his word; why is his word in an email that only OTRS can read somehow more reliable than his word in a publically visible web site like Vimeo? If you're doubting that he works for GQ, well, his web site and his LinkedIn both list GQ Magazine as clients (among numerous others). If you're doubting he has the rights to this particular video, well, the Huffington Post seems to believe him. With all due respect for Sarah's experience and judgment in other areas, and they are great, in this particular case these objections are just wrong. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi GRuban, I think you missed the point I was making, namely that we don't know who owns the copyright. The same video has been posted to YouTube by Longden and GQ under a non-free licence. See the final paragraph of my post at 14:04, 24 May 2016. The first step is to establish who the copyright holder is. If it is Longden and he intended to release it on Vimeo (assuming he understands the implications of having done so), and if his later upload to YouTube under a non-free licence was an error, then all is well and no further action is needed. But that needs to be confirmed, because the current situation is unclear. SarahSV (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, I really don't think you understand copyrights and am becoming very uncomfortable with you as the image reviewer. As the filmmaker, he has a copyright and unless the subject is copyrighted per se, he has permission to release his own work to creative commons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Longden was hired by Kelly to shoot this for GQ. Longden has confirmed that he is not the copyright holder. Kelly has confirmed that the video has not been released under a free licence. The correspondence has been forwarded to permissions, so they will decide how to proceed. SarahSV (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, Sarah - you got a response from Longden?!? In one day? Great work. Though very sad, of course. What is your secret to getting the response, though? I admit, one of the main reasons I was so opposed to writing him was that I was sure he wouldn't respond. I've done this getting images of people a few times, and in my experience, writing an actual article subject for or about an image gets no response most of the time, and if any response does come (including "no", that also happens), it comes in three months! So I was sure no response would come either ever, or not in time to be useful. Sarah, tell me your secret! Oh well. You did a great job. I admit, I am not happy with the result, but it was still good work. Thank you. Grrr.
Sorry, Tony. Unfortunately, if Longden does not own the rights, and put up the video in error, we're going to have to pull the images. All those lovely, lovely images, that you and I searched the Web for, scanned the video for, screenshotted, cropped, and edited. Trust me, it hurts me too; you edited them, but I did the searching. We can't make a case out of this; even if we could, we shouldn't, because we're not in this business to hurt people; but in this case we simply can't. If he had owned the rights, and released them, then was trying to change his mind, we could make an argument that the release was non-revocable, we have done that before in a minority of cases ... but here, if he says he simply didn't own the rights, then he didn't. By default, the person taking the photograph - or in this case, the video - owns the rights, but he can sign those rights away, and if he says he did that as part of the GQ shoot, then we need to believe him. We shouldn't do it ourselves, as we don't have his email, maybe his phrasing isn't quite that; but the Commons OTRS folks will see exactly what Longden wrote, and if it is this, the pics will have to go. Very sad. We still have a couple of images from other videos, that's something. C'est la vie. --GRuban (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you seen this guy's web page. He puts up every video that he does under creative commons licensing. I don't see how this one could be by mistake.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I have. That is one of the reasons I thought he was legitimate - i.e., clearly a professional photographer, and consciously releasing all his work - yet also because of that I am willing to believe that this one was by mistake, because he just puts all his work under this license, and may not be looking too carefully at his contracts, which may well be different for different clients. He doesn't just work for GQ, after all, he works for dozens if not hundreds of clients; while I am sure the contracts he himself writes up for the smaller clients give him all the rights to his videos, I wouldn't be surprised if at least GQ, as one of his bigger clients, could set the terms for rights. I will wait for the OTRS folks to read the email Sarah forwarded to them, but I think we should be morally prepared for it to say what she says it does. --GRuban (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
GRuban, seeing those apparent releases had the opposite effect on me, because it makes no sense for a professional photographer to release all his work, especially such high-quality work, so that other people can make money from it. And at least some of the work probably couldn't be released (the Pepsi ad, for example). If you look at the same videos on YouTube, they're not free. There may be something about the way Vimeo describes its licences that makes it easy to choose the wrong tag. SarahSV (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


  • ""Blurred Lines" was controversial: some felt it promoted rape... Ratajkowski said that; The video has been called sexist for its degradation of women... Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9]" These two paragraphs are on the same topic, and should be combined, as all the critics who feel it promotes rape also think it degrades women, and those who don't, don't, and as Rata's responses are basically the same.
  • "On April 29, Russian entertainer Dima Bilan announced his forthcoming music video "Inseparable" (sometimes translated as "Indivisible") via Instagram.[132][133] The Russian-language video, featuring Bilan as a photographer and Ratajkowski as his muse,[134] was recorded in Los Angeles.[135]" Combine into one sentence; it doesn't matter how Bilan announced the video, since it doesn't affect Ratajkowski, and almost doesn't matter where he recorded it. I guess it might be of some interest that it's in Russian; does she speak in the video?
  • "Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, who again played the attractive object of affection in We Are Your Friends, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess." - clumsy. How about "In their respective reviews of We Are Your Friends, Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, again playing the attractive object of affection, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess."?
  • In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend Andrew Dryden, a creative director and menswear buyer.[136][137] In December 2014, Us Weekly confirmed she was dating musician Jeff Magid.[138] - Remove. We are not a gossip magazine, we are not interested in whom she's dating month to month. Ten years from now, she herself won't remember. If she marries or is otherwise in a long term committed partnership, fine, but just casual relationships are not any of our business.
    • I am confused why this content is any different than the content in other actresses at FAC that this section was modeled after. They each seem to summarize relationships that are noted in sources that rise above tabloids. It seems that personal life is suppose to summarize known relationships. I am not summarizing every date. E.g., she went with some designer to the Met Gala a few weeks ago and has social media posts with other dudes. I am not naming random dates. I am summarizing relationships that are significant according to RS. Look around at other FAs and the current FACs. This is what is now deemed proper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • She's a 24 year old single actress and model specializing in erotica, of course she dates. She similarly eats, sleeps, wears clothes, and swims at beaches, and I'm quite sure we can find articles, with extensive paparazzi photographs, saying "today EmRata was spotted at restaurant X, hotel Y, wearing a new outfit by Z, and/or at beach Q", and none of these would be suitable for her encyclopedia article either. If she didn't date, that might be notable! However, in addition, naming people that don't have articles or don't otherwise appear in the Wikipedia except for dating her can have a huge undue impact on their lives; every subsequent Google of them by another prospective date will bring this up high on the list, which isn't fair to them. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names is basically about this. I am pretty sure this content wasn't there during the last review(s), or I would have said the same there. As for the contention that we do this in other FAs, let's see; I haven't reviewed that many. There isn't an "actresses" section, but there is a Media section. Let's look at the other biographies at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies. Andjar Asmara - no Personal life section; James T. Aubrey - no Personal life section; Kroger Babb - has Personal life section, only romantic interest named is the one who became a life long partner; Vidya Balan - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one she later married; Eric Bana - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one he later married; Joseph Barbera - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are the two he later married; John Barrymore - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout (so I may have missed some on a skim) but it seems to mention one person he proposed to, whose murder trial became a major scandal, and three he married; Harriet Bosse - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout, only naming three people she married; Rudolph Cartier - no Personal life section, only mentions one of three spouses (?!?); Nancy Cartwright - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are one she married and one she planned to before his death, fallout from which death had a significant impact on her life. Those are the first ten, alphabetically. I'm going to keep my assertion that we should only mention marriages or similarly highly important romantic relationships. --GRuban (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I had content like this in at one point and was told to remove it. Then for this FAC, I noticed that the other current actress FACs (Emma Stone, Frieda Pinto, and Kalki Koechlin and more recently Catherine Zeta-Jones) all had personal lives sections and media image sections and were all getting supports. I reformatted Ratas "Activism and advocacy" section to be like the acceptable format of other actress articles. Note Andjar Asmara is not an actor and was promoted in 2012, James T. Aubrey not an actor and promoted in 2005, Kroger Babb not an actor and promoted in 2006. In 2016, actress personal life sections seem to be expected at FAC. I am not going to keep going, but I suggest sorting for FAs promoted in 2016 and seeing what you find. Given the current slate at FAC, I am guessing personal life sections will abound. In an earlier FAC of Brad Pitt (now an FA), I tried to get Gwyneth Paltrow's (not FA) relationship with him mentioned and got a lot of brushback. I now see she is mentioned in his personal life section and the personal life section of Ben Affleck (not FA) and has a personal life section of her own.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Furthermore note that GQ mentions boyfriend Magid in Sept 2015. The article shows that they began dating in December 2014. There are also a host of tabloid mentions of the couple dating in Daily Mail and Daily Express.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
          • Hrr. 1. I'm troubled that you searched for actresses only, not actors. 2. Freida_Pinto#Personal_life only mentions an engagement, and a 6 year relationship with her costar in the movie that launched her career. Kalki_Koechlin#Personal_life_and_off-screen_work only mentions her husband. 3. The other FACs only name people who are other actors and have articles of their own. 4. I may well now go to some of these other FAC reviews you link to and oppose on this basis. Thanks. >:-). --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
            • There are no current actor nominations. I am not sure that the current FACs personal image sections exclude non-notables. I think they just include people in RS. I will try to look up 2016 actor/actress promotions for a better feel. Let me know what happens in the context of other FAC opposes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
            • O.K. Personal life sections are not mandatory. The 2016 FAs are Sonam Kapoor and Michael Hordern both of which don't have them. I don't think Hordern is a relevant comparison since his life predates the internet era where relationships are quite public. Kapoor's article is void of relationships. I am not sure what is right given the current slate of nominees.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[139][140] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[141][142] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds" - shorten, repetitive. Something like: "Rata has raised funds, done public service announcements, and committed to a short film promoting safe... for ... She describes it as her main charity because of ..." Keep the opposition sentence.
  • "As a woman who enjoys both ballet and pornographic entertainment, Ratajkowski feels that she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women." - Umm ... what? That's a striking non sequitur. What does ballet have to do with either nudity or equality? Is it specifically naked ballet? Feminist ballet? (Both exist, I imagine.)
    • I think Rata's argument is that society has a non sequitur perspective that a woman can not act certain ways or do certain things and support equality for women. However, Rata herself not only does things professionally but also has a wide range of things that she considers acceptable non of which preclude her stated beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • If it takes that much debatable interpretation, it's a poorly chosen quote. She has said lots of things in support of the intersection of feminism and sexuality, and we will only pick some of them to quote in our article, so we should choose ones that make sense. Unless we are trying to point out that she often says things that don't make sense? Is she prone to malapropisms? --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
        • She often makes the point that "she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women", but it is not always pointed out in which her activities of enjoying ballet and pornography are discussed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
          • And you believe that mentioning that she enjoys ballet and pornography is crucial to the article? First, I admit, I kind of doubt it. But, if you really feel strongly about it, it shouldn't be conjoined with her point about sexuality and feminism, as at least the ballet part isn't obviously connected. It would be like writing: "As a woman who is 5'7 tall and was born in Westminster, Ratajkowski supports sexuality and feminism." --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Both Ballet and Pornography are forms of female artistic expression of the body and sexuality, which are what Ratajkowski's message is all about. I have rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "to counter Gloria Steinem's statement that young female Sanders supporters (and thus Hillary Clinton opponents)" - strike the parenthetical remark, it doesn't add anything
  • "and Rachael Moon of The Daily Mirror" - "The" should either be both italicised and capitalized, as part of the paper's name, or neither.
  • "Ratajkowski defended Kim Kardashian in a March naked selfie social media controversy" - a bit more description is needed. "... defended KK from criticism after K posted a naked selfie on ... " maybe?
  • "Following her letter and social media statement, her feminism became controversial." - that's just not true, her feminism was controversial from at least the moment she called herself one after appearing nude on the treats cover, if not before. You've got an entire paragraph on the controversy in the Personal life section. In fact, what makes that paragraph go in the Personal life section, and this go in the Media image section?
  • Same for the Sanders endorsement, what makes that Personal life and not Media image? Though I guess you have to put it somewhere, it's a prominent political endorsement, it's not really Personal life. How about renaming the whole Personal life section to Politics or Activism, since, after removal of the dating sentences, that's what it is about?
    • FA bios now have a section titled personal life in which people talk about relationships and causes. I question removing dating content that is in RSs. If you have a cause that becomes a media hot topic, I think it moves down into the media image section. Causes that do not stir a lot of emotions stay up in the personal life section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • CR Fashion Book seems to be United States (New York, even) https://twitter.com/crfashionbook--GRuban (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • GRuban, what do you think of adding a FU image for her August 11 breakout day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    Er ... ? I'm not sure; let me enumerate why. 1) What's the image? 2) I'm not sure what her August 11 breakout day would be. When she went on tour promoting a film that she had a minor part in? 3) Honestly, I'd recommend asking the opinion of Sarah (SV). She's the main person opposing the current fair use image in the article. There is a lot to be said for making your reviewers happy. Presumably the image you choose would wear clothes... 4) Finally, given the subject, and the occasionally heated discussion, we ... probably should not use FU as the abbreviation for fair use. Just saying. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Copy-edit by the Guild of Copy Editors[edit]

I have completed a requested copy-edit of this article. Here are the changes I made. I removed very little content, only a sentence or phrase here and there. I moved a couple of chunks of text to more appropriate sections.

I took care to check some potentially controversial quotations and paraphrases against their sources and rephrased or replaced the text in the article with text that better matched the sources.

Let me know if you have any questions. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Why did you remove the following: She said: "... there's different kinds of nudity, and ... the video was tasteful".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw it as excessive. Immediately prior to that sentence, we have "Ratajkowski did not think of .. and claimed ...", "She said that ...", and "Ratajkowski said that ... and that she believes ...." We don't need a sixth statement in a row from Ratajkowski. Five is already a lot. If you think that the "different kinds" statement adds value, I recommend finding a way to synthesize the previous five messages from the article's subject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on this copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
"before they settled in the United States" or "before they moved to the United States" would be correct. "Family" usually takes a plural pronoun, even in American English. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkyCanute[edit]

This is my first time reviewing a FAC, so I posit these as comments.

I see you have done a vast amount of work on this article, which is great. However, fundamentally, the article for me does not appear to be well-written (WP:WIAFA 1). I'd go so far as to say that it is poorly written. It reads like a mosaic of citations, which have been pieced together to make the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work, and results in stilted language construction and even, at times, non-sequiturs: the writing (rather than the article), is therefore not 'engaging'. There are also, on occasion, some sentences that need work to be considered 'of a professional standard'. These are some examples, and are not an exhaustive list:

Early life

*Ratajkowski, an only child,[4] was born in Westminster, London, to American parents.[5] At Ratajkowski's birth, her mother, Kathleen Balgley, and father, John David "J. D." Ratajkowski, were aged 39 and 45, respectively,[6] and unmarried.[7] Balgley, an English professor and writer, described by Ratajkowski as a "feminist and intellectual",[8][9] was teaching under the Fulbright Program.[7] Balgley met J. D. Ratajkowski, a painter and art teacher,[8] when they both taught at San Dieguito Academy.

I can see how this has been pieced together, but it is clunky. Try instead:
Ratajkowski was born in Westminster, London, the only child of Kathleen Balgley and John David "JD" Ratajkowski, both American. Balgley, a professor of English and a writer, was teaching under the Fulbright Program, when she met JDR, a painter and art teacher, when while they were both teaching at San Dieguito Academy. At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45 respectively. Ratajkowski describes her mother as a "feminist and intellectual".
FunkyCanute, I don't have a lot of time today, but I do appreciate the involvment of better writers than me. This suggestion results in an odd use of when twice in the same sentence. Does that seem odd to you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger Yes, agreed, but easily remedied by changing the second when to while. No doubt my suggestion can be improved further. Part of what it achieves, nevertheless, is a reduction in the number of times that the names Ratajkowski and Balgley appear in the paragraph. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

*As a physically mature young teenager, Ratajkowski endured pressure to suppress expressing her sexuality[19][20] and how she presented herself.[21] Several problems. 1) The sentence introduces the idea that she was physically mature in a sub-clause. 2) The alliteration in 'pressure to suppress expressing' is unappealing; while the second part of the sentence (...and how...) does not follow syntactically from the first. 3) From whom did she endure pressure?

Career

*Ratajkowski staged shows for her family as a child.[22] Her first formal acting role was as Elsa in an adaptation of The Little Match Girl at the North Coast Repertory Theatre School in Solana Beach, California.[4] She played Harriet in the interactive 2004 Lyceum Theatre production of Harriet Potter and the Throne of Applewort.[23] Ratajkowski signed with Ford Models at age 14 and did teen print catalog modeling for Kohl's and Nordstrom.[8] She attended San Dieguito Academy high school in San Diego, while modeling and acting in Los Angeles.[24]

This is a list, albeit presented as prose. It's difficult to understand what is going on partly because the timeline switches between year and her age: 2004, age 14; partly, we have unexplained jumps in location. I appreciate that some previous comments have said it needs to be cut back, but here we need to expand. Something like: "Ratajkowski began acting as a child, staging shows for her family. Her first formal role was as Elsa..." Year? Age? "Later, in 2004, she played Harriet..." What's the cause for the transition form North Coast Theatre School to San Dieguito Academy? Is it the signing with Ford Models or something else? It isn't clear.
    • The first 3 sentences show she enjoyed theatre, her first role and a later prominent role. Nothing unusual about that. We can only present time references that we have. If we have a year for one and an age for another that is what we have.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • From what I can tell by this non-RS North coast was as a 6th grader in 2002. San Dieguito was high school. I think age causes such a transition:)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Music video performances

*The fourth paragraph, beginning "Blurred Lines" was controversial, is very nicely put together, and is the standard to which the rest of the article needs to adhere, although it would be better not to repeat 'promoted'.

*The following paragraph repeats the polarised positions of the video's reception, with a little more detail, rather than moving on, as would be expected. Blend these two paragraphs together. Try:

"Blurred Lines" was controversial: it was called sexist for its degradation of women, and some felt it promoted rape. Others disagreed, asserting that it promoted female power and sexual freedom. Martel defended Ratajkowski's performance, saying: "it's very, very funny and subtly ridiculing." Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist and claimed that the producers, through the use of humor and sarcasm, "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting". She said that the song "gave me an opportunity to say the things that I felt about feminism today and about women in general in pop culture." She did not feel objectified and enjoyed performing in a sexual manner: the attention given to the nudity in the video, she said, showed that America had not advanced as far as it should have, and, she believed, society repressed sexuality, which was bad for both sexes.
    • You are asking me to merge a paragraph about "rapey" lyrics of the song with a paragraph about perceptions of degrading nudity in a video. The subject of one is lyrics and the subject of the other is a video. I am having trouble with this last instruction as a result.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

These are examples, only, and some suggestions for remedying the prose. Most of the article would benefit from some serious attention to the writing.

Aside from this, in my opinion, the article mostly meets all the other FA criteria. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Rise to fame
  • Overall, while this section seems very thorough, it doesn't appear to offer a progression. We occasionally jump from one item to another, and some of the timeline is unclear.

*The title strikes me as WP:PEACOCK.

    • This title was probably better before I moved its first paragraph to lead the Media image section. I have changed it to "Breakthrough"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Too many paragraphs begin with her name.

*There are also two consecutive ones that begin "Ratajkowski was cast in...".

  • Many of the paragraphs are very short. Is it possible to combine them in some way?
  • The first sentence is about July 2013. The next begins June 24, but is about July 2014. I'm confused about the timeline.
    • With the rearranged content the chronology is more muddled. Advice welcome, but I don't think relying on strict chronology will work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ratajkowski parlayed her sudden prominence into supporting roles in major films." I don't know what this means. Also seems to be PEACOCK/WEASEL.
    • FunkyCanute, I could use some advice on the fact that the first paragraph of the media image section is in a place that it probably belongs but is now not serving to introduce her breakthrough section. What should I do regarding this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "In September 2014, Ratajkowski was a victim..." The sentence that follows is a non-sequitur.
    • Thematically, they are not closely related subjects, but they occured in the same month, which causes them to be sequential.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

*The final four paragraphs are not in chronological order.

Personal life
  • "In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend..." It would be better to begin by informing the reader that they were together before mentioning the breakup.
    • It is on the public record that she dated Dryden from March 2012 until Feb 2014, but I don't think this is a reliable source and am not sure one exists for this fact. I'd settle for one stating that they dated for nearly 2 years or since 2012 if I could find it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, that's all the comments from me. You've addressed my earlier comments already. I've made a very small number of edits directly to the text. I will read through again. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I've made a few more changes to the article, purely in an attempt to improve the prose. Following these, I give a support for the article's text. However, I have not reviewed any of the images. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

Oppose, 1(a), 1(d), 3 and 4. This has been at FAC since January. I suggest withdrawing it, fixing the issues reviewers have identified (even if you disagree with them), then submitting it for peer review.

  • When the last FAC ended, the article was 3,488 words. The current version is 3,105, which is an improvement, but the article is still very list-like, with a weak narrative structure and too much trivia, which makes it repetitive and hard to read. For example:

Alonso Duralde of TheWrap described the role as thin, as did Ty Burr of The Boston Globe.[105][106] Burr said that Ratajkowski's performance was "surpassingly dull",[105] while Nell Minow of Beliefnet noted that she "does more posing than acting."[107] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing",[108] and Jordan Hoffman of the Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet."[109] Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Grantland's Morris noted Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal, as previously seen in "Blurred Lines".[110][111]

The "Blurred Lines" video garnered Ratajkowski notoriety,[11] especially as a sex symbol.[63] In October 2013, Esquire magazine named Ratajkowski "Woman of the Year", over online fan vote finalist Jennifer Lawrence.[64] That December, Rolling Stone magazine listed her among its twenty hottest sex symbols.[63] In February 2014, Sports Illustrated magazine named Ratajkowski as one of twelve 50th anniversary swimsuit issue rookies.[65] In April, FHM ranked her the fourth sexiest woman in the world.[66] Maxim magazine included Ratajkowski at number 62 on its 2014 Hot 100 list.[67][68] AskMen ranked her the third most desirable woman of 2014.[69]

Ratajkowski is regarded as one of the sexiest women in the world. She was ranked in Maxim's Hot 100 list in both 2014 (#62)[67] and 2015 (#2).[164] AskMen ranked her among its most desirable women of 2014 (#3)[69] and 2016 (#14);[165] while FHM ranked her among the sexiest in 2014 (#4),[66] and 2015 (#18).[166] She is also praised for her fashion sense: Ratajkowski made Vogue Italia's Best Dressed List of 2015,[167] and Harper's Bazaar placed her atop its best dressed list at the February 2016 New York Fashion Week.[168]

    • It is pretty difficult to figure out how to improve the article based on issues like this. Basically, you are saying: This is stuff that could reasonably be presented in a listified trivia section that should be deleted. However, WP:TRIVIA says "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions..." Thus, I am thinking that this content is presented as well as it could be. The WP:LEAD currently says "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." The third example that you present is an example of grouping and ordering such facts about her sex appeal and fashion sense for an integrated presentation. Alternatively, you could make the argument that we do not need to tell the reader "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." in which case, this content is not necessary, but the main body is currently just supporting the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The article is promotional. For example, this sentence is pure PR: "As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with 'curves that put her in a different class from runway models',[125] she has said that she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models."[125]
  • At least two reviewers have highlighted the inclusion of the parents' ages, yet it remains: "At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45, respectively ..." There is nothing unusual about this, and it looks odd to mention it.
    • In the current FAC, both Vensatry and FunkyCanute have helped me refine the presentation of this content without any suggestion that it was not properly included. FrB.TG questioned whether the parental stage of life at birth is an encyclopedic matter. I explained that it may be and can even be WP:LEAD worthy. E.g., a posthumous birth can be Leadworthy in the case of a very notable parent, such as Rory Kennedy. Although not LEAD-worthy here, the parental stage of life at the time of birth (average age of 42) is in the skinny part of the bell curve. Noting a posthumous birth in the article is probably not normal, but in some cases is very encyclopedic. Noting older and unmarried parents is not quite as unusual as a prominent dead parent, but those two facts together make for unusual enough parental stage of life to cause need for clarification, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ratajkowski was a physically mature young teenager who endured pressure to limit expressing her sexuality ..." Better to use the primary source. [41] Many women experience the kind of sexism she describes, but the article almost gives the impression that it's unusual. Try something like: "R has written about her experience of ..."
  • The nude non-free doesn't comply with WP:NFCC #8.
  • Including current and former dates is intrusive.
  • The paragraph about feminism in the "Personal life" section isn't well-written or sourced. It uses Charlie Burton of GQ, a men's magazine, as an RS on feminism: "British GQ's Charlie Burton stated that she is a feminist with more to say than others. He said that her message is one of sexual empowerment, because sex should not feel like a service and should be beneficial to all involved parties."
    • "isn't well-sourced"? The sources are Cosmopolitan (magazine) 2x, Elle (magazine), The New York Times, InStyle, Zimbabwe Metro, and British GQ. By what standards are these not good sources? I think the writing is up to the standards of the sources, but am willing to respond to examples that might clarify your concern. Regarding Burton, WP is suppose to depict all sides of an issue. Including feminism summaries from both men's and women's publications is not a mark against the sources. In fact, it is probably exemplary. We are not suppose to only present the issue from one side. Furthermore, Burton is quite sympathetic to Rata's issues and hardly contradicts or contravenes the women's mag statements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There are more paragraphs on sexism and feminism in the "Media image" section. They are list-like, not neutral and not well-sourced. The feminism sections should be combined and reduced, and based only on appropriate sources.
    • "List-like"? I am just summarizing sources. I have attempted to model the personal image section and media section based on the articles that were at FAC while this FAC was (Emma Stone, Kalki Koechlin, Freida Pinto and Catherine Zeta-Jones). Advocacy seems to be a personal life issue in other bios. However, specific stories are media image issues in my mind. It seems that you are advocating eliminating all elements of the personal life section. However, it seems to be current expectation that this content be included.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The paragraph on Blurred Lines in the "Music video performances" section leans almost entirely toward Ratajkowski's view, which is the minority view. Most sources found the song and video disturbing; the Guardian called it the "most controversial song of the decade." [42] The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is absurd; that view should not be included unchallenged.
    • The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is the view of the subject of the article. Shouldn't the content focus on the subject of the article? The paragraph clearly states that there are two sides to the issue. Then it expands upon Ratajkowski's opinion. She is the subject of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The second-last sentence attributes a subhead to a journalist (the Saul source). These are usually written by sub-editors. Unless that sentence is also in the article, it should not be attributed to the reporter.

SarahSV (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

GRuban, you are the SlimVirgin-whisperer. I am not finding the issues herein actionable. What am I not understanding? I am trying to WP:AGF here, but feel I am just up against someone who will do anything to keep this article from passing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Sheesh - I already got into trouble for mansplaining once, now I'm being asked to do it again! (Well, kind of. Technically mansplaining is explaining to a woman, not quite about one...) Tony, she's not writing in some foreign language that I need to interpret. (If she were writing in Russian, I could do that for you!) SlimVirgin / Sarah (SV) is an experienced Wikipedia editor, FA writer and (presumably, I haven't checked) reviewer. Yes, she does not like the nude image. Since you seem set on having it, there doesn't seem to be a way around that, it will be a road bump. You might be able to get the article passed anyway, if that is the sole objection, but if you have several road bumps like that you won't pass, so addressing the things that you and she can find common ground on seems like a good idea, rather than pushing back on every little thing, and assuming that Sarah is out to get you. She is not. No, she is clearly not a personal fan of the subject; but in the end, she is able to overcome that in an effort to make the article better. She doesn't have to actually like the subject in order to write well about it - her most recent FA is Female genital mutilation, I hope you can accept she is not a fan of that? Addressing the specific things she says, with rare exceptions like the nude image, is quite possible. For example, she is saying that Charlie Burton of GQ magazine is not an expert on feminism. You're saying that there are 6 sources for that paragraph, GQ is only one. Well, just at first glance, then, there seems to be room to meet there; the other 5 are presumably better sources on feminism than GQ, a, by definition, men's magazine. No? Surely the other 5 sources can support most if not all of what you want to write there? (If you would like to insist that Burton is an expert on feminism, please dig up some sources that say so, or noticeable works he's written on the subject, or something like that; it is theoretically possible to be an expert on feminism without being a feminist ... but frankly I suspect just relying on the mainstream papers and the women's magazines will be easier.) --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm responding because pinged, but I'm not sure what further point to make, and it seems that very little is listened to. I wrote above: "Oppose, 1(a), 1(d), 3 and 4. This has been at FAC since January. I suggest withdrawing it, fixing the issues reviewers have identified (even if you disagree with them), then submitting it for peer review."
See WP:FACR: 1(a) the writing is not "engaging and of a professional standard"; 1(d) it does not "present[...] views fairly and without bias" (specifically, it violates WP:UNDUE); 3: non-free images must satisfy NFCC; and 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail ...". To that I should have added 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources." There are several sources here that are not appropriate for their use. I offered examples of each of these issues above.
Again, I suggest reading all five FAC reviews and fixing the issues reviewers have highlighted, bearing in mind that reviewers only offer examples of problems. So the examples that are highlighted need to be sorted out, but so do others that are similar in kind. Overall I would say the article needs a rewrite and a rethink rather than a copy edit.
Tony, perhaps you could find someone to partner with who doesn't care about the subject, because part of the problem here is that you've become too close to it. I know that will be difficult, because people who don't care are unlikely to want to work on something like this, but it might be worth asking around. Either that or take it off your watchlist for a few months to create some distance for yourself. I've done that several times with articles I've worked on, and it has always helped. SarahSV (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I really feel that your review amounts to a wiki-filibuster. I have been responding to issues of the 5 FACs for several months. I have addressed some of your concerns and have no idea whether you have even noticed. Since you have the dual role as the image reviewer, it is particularly troubling that you have not articulated a response to my latest fair use rationale, which was phrased in direct response to your prior statements. Note that in this review, I have sought commentary from the other editors who were editing FAC-nominated actress articles. This is the closest I could come to partnering with an interested party "who doesn't care about the subject". Unfortunately, model articles are not common at FAC and Ratajkowski has met with more success as a model than an actess.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
None of the major points I raised have been dealt with. The main issue for me is that the article is not well-enough written for FA. Every other objection from me is secondary to that one.
I responded to the fair-use issue at 14:04, 24 May, second paragraph. The edits to the rationale after that didn't address those points. The rationale implies that any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job – or perhaps any photograph that changed someone's career – can be uploaded under a fair-use claim so that readers can judge why the job offerers liked them.
Regarding the writing, I understand the difficulty of finding someone to partner with. But an alternative is for you not to read the article for a while. That has worked well for me in the past.
That's really all I want to say, so I'd prefer to leave it there. SarahSV (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, Your fair use argument seems to be double speak to me. Above you note your disapproval of sources of modest notability suggesting that they be replaced by more esteemed and notable sources. However, when I back up a fair use claim with quotations from The New York Times you insist that fair use images justified by the highest caliber sources should be ignored in favor of your own personal beliefs about what constitutes a notable subject. Am I to believe that your opinion/understanding on what constitutes a notable images is a better arbiter than determining what the NYT considers fit to print. I will gladly remove the image when you can explain to me why your personal understanding of notable images is superior to those of NYT editors or maybe GRuban can help me understand your points in this regard. I assume that the NYT editors are capable of determining which images (naked or not) are fit to print. The NYT does not document the notability of "any photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job". I am quite sure they only consider details of certain ones fit to print and whether or not you personally are sophisticated enough destinguish which ones are that notable, they are. Your current NFCC objection is nothing more than a statement that you are not confident that the NYT's opinion of the worth of a "photograph of a naked woman that helped to get her a job" can be trusted over your own inability to distinguish which ones are notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, Regarding writing, I do not consider myself to be a great writer. I research and add content in as objective a manner as I can. Sometimes others get interested in subjects that I have authored for WP and have turned my research into high caliber prose. In terms of my WP:FACs, I have had my best success when other editors have gotten involved in the copyediting. The article has had 3 WP:GOCE copyedits. Honestly, I do not believe that even a great copyedit would meet with your approval because I believe your objection is a veiled objection to the fact that a model-turned-actress who rose to notability in an arguably anti-feminist manner should have an FA. However, (off the top of my head) there are two editors who have helped me get multiple FAs promoted with their substantial copyediting assistance. I don't think this subject matter interests either of them. I will ping them both (Ruhrfisch and Figureskatingfan) here and leave them messages on their talk pages. Note that in FAC3, the latter supported at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emily_Ratajkowski/archive3#Comments_from_Figureskatingfan. I have trimmed the article quite a bit and it is vastly improved since she last saw it. Maybe one of the two of them will be interested in lending a hand with a copy edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A third editor (Ceoil) who I also doubt will find this subject of interest has helped me promote some FAs but only those in the WP:WPVA area. I will also approach him.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, Curly Turkey has been a WPVA only FA copyeditor for me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I haven't read through the above—are you requesting a copyedit, or something more involved? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, based on my interactions with you and my experience in getting articles through FAC with as many as 3 (Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), BP Pedestrian Bridge, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Millennium Park), 4 (First inauguration of Barack Obama, Crown Fountain, Cloud Gate) or 5 (Juwan Howard) FAC attempts, I do not feel you are discussing this topic in fairly. The purpose of an oppose at FAC is to present policy-based actionable items to a nominator in an effort to help him improve the article and WP by responding to actionable concerns until they are satisfactorily resolved. The purpose of your oppose seems to be block the possibility that good faith revisions could achieve FA. Additionally, I find it bad faith for you to present objections based on personal beliefs rather than policy. E.g., as I have noted at User_talk:Curly Turkey#Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.2FEmily Ratajkowski.2Farchive5, neither WP:NFCC nor WP:FUR has anything to do with naked images. If you want to discuss NFCC, you need to clarify the impropriety of the FUR, which is largely based on three things about the photo: 1.) It is one of the two things that has propelled her to fame, 2.) A journalist from The New York Times stated that it was "artfully composed", and 3.) The director of her breakout music video stated that she selected her because "She looked smart and stunningly beautiful" in the photo. If you are not willing to cogently discuss this FUR's relevance to NFCC, your NFCC oppose is not policy based. If you want to object based on the article being unbalanced or promotional, you need to be willing to discuss the relevant policies. This is a give and take and in my experience at FAC, it is done on an actionable item by actionable item basis. You have been a very uncooperative discussant to date. Currently, the article has three supports and an uncooperative oppose. At FAC, I am suppose to be able to attempt to address actionable concerns, attempt to better understand actionable concerns, and attempt to question the actionability of concerns, but I can not improve the article by doing this if you are unwilling to discuss each of your actionable concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin, As I have documented, some of my greatest successes are articles where I persevered through several FAC nominations. I am very willing to work to improve the article to address reasonable concerns. You posted an extensive list of concerns on June 10. I responded on June 13 and June 14. A fair discussant would be willing to engage in discourse to come to further resolution on the issues that he/she has raised. Instead, you suddenly decided to declare a nominations with 3 supports and no opposes other than your own as a nomination for a subject that should be completely overhauled with no further discussion really necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • However, you continue to oppose based on old versions of articles with dated objections that have been largely addressed. If we encouraged discussants to base objections based on old versions of articles, it would be impossible to improve an article to achieve FA. Just yesterday you pointed out your FAC3 March 23 objections to an old version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let Ian and I weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

Oppose per WP:WIAFA:

1 (a). The prose has been mentioned on FAC1, FAC2, FAC3, FAC4 and FAC5. It's improving but it's not good enough for FA standards. I won't give specific examples, because a., there have been lots already, and 2., at this point the nominator should step back and really work the prose from top to bottom. Giving examples seems to result in small fixes, the problems are throughout and it's not the reviewers' job to fix.

Per 1 (c), sourcing seems to be an issue. I started to make a list of people who complained, i.e, Drmies just above, but realized it's endemic and appears in all the FACs. If it's being complained about here, it's still an issue.

Per 1 (d). It's too promotional or biased. This has been mentioned in FACs 3, 4 and 5 but the material is still there, despite the many examples given.

Per 2 (b): the structure is confusing. The "Career" section tells that she began acting as a child - this is perhaps best put in the "Early life" section. It's not unusual for children to attend acting camps. Some get the bug, others not. It goes on to tell that she went to the North Coast Repertory Theatre School (which is not a performing arts school but simply offers classes and camps), then about her high school. At some point here it should probably begin the career section, since she began modeling at age 14. How did she become a model? Did she show up at an open call? Do we know? Para 3 in the "Career" section tells us that the nude for Treats! lands her a music video and the next sentence talks about Carls Jr. This is very confusing to follow, and the structure is like this throughout.

Per 3. Do we really want an image of a young woman, nude (however tastefully positioned and photographed), with the title Treats! above? What kind of a message does this send? In the least, I'd suggest cropping the image and losing the magazine's title.

Per 4. The article is overly detailed (her icloud account was hacked is maybe not notable; that she was at Coachella not noteworthy, that she made an instagram post today not noteworthy. These problems plague the article throughout and have been mentioned in FAC4 and FAC3.

I hesitated about posting here; in fact I've been thinking about it since I saw it mentioned on a talk page. In the end I decided to, but I don't like to see the badgering. That's an understatement. I won't be replying or responding. If an article fails on so many of the criteria, particularly over the course of a full year, reviewers can and should be opposing. The problem with opposing is ... well, there are lots of problems. I decided to follow my conscience. I hope I don't find myself regretting it. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrestle Kingdom 9[edit]

Nominators: リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) and starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is our third attempt at WP:FA for this article, as the first two attempts didn't generate enough discussion. The article is about a 2015 Japanese professional wrestling show, the premier annual event of NJPW, and was praised by critics. It received an award as the Best Major Wrestling Show of 2015, and one of its matches was awarded 2015 Pro Wrestling Match of the Year. Ribbon and I have created the article, brought it to DYK, GA and peer review.

To encourage activity, I'm willing to exchange reviews for anyone I haven't already given help to! Whereas Ribbon said he would try to help in his own way! :) starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Sorry to see you've had so little luck getting reviews after three nominations.

  • Any reason for the citation on the first sentence? Cites aren't usually needed in the lead except for direct quotes and contentious statements.
  • I believe it was originally there to show that the full name of the event is "Wrestle Kingdom 9 in Tokyo Dome" and not just the "Wrestle Kingdom 9" that's used throughout the article. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The full name is now in the Background section in the body! starship.paint ~ KO 02:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Tanahashi-Okada heavyweight title match also headlined Wrestle Kingdom 7 and Wrestle Kingdom 10": I think this means that 7 and 10 also had a heavyweight title match between Tanahashi and Okada, but this phrasing isn't quite right -- "The Tanahashi-Okada match" refers to a single instance of a match, not to a matchup. Just changing the lead "The" to "A" and making it "had also" might do it, though you could also rephrase.
  • Changed, thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    I tweaked it; see if that's OK -- the problem is that Wrestle Kingdom 10 is not in the past at the time of Wrestle Kingdom 9, so using "had" only works for WK7. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The appearance of Pro Wrestling Noah wrestlers led to a storyline where NJPW's Suzuki-gun group began wrestling in Noah": I don't know enough about wrestling to really follow this, but I think it's saying that the Suzuki-gun group began wrestling under the Noah promotional banner, or in Noah events. I think this would be clearer to non-aficionados if you provided a timeframe -- e.g. "led to a storyline at the following week's Noah event".
  • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, to take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015. That day NJPW announced a partnership with Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling, which it approached about bringing the event to a new market." I think this should be "which it had approached", since the approach presumably precedes January 4, but wouldn't it be better to make this strictly chronological? Something like (and I'm guessing at the date for the first part): "Early in 2014, NJPW approached Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling to suggest bringing the Wrestle Kingdom event to a new market. On August 10, 2014, NJPW announced that Wrestle Kingdom 9 would take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015, and on November 4 GFW followed with an announcement that the event would be presented live on ..."
  • Personally, I would think that NJPW approached GFW about the PPV thing after August when the partnership between the two was announced, but this isn't specifically stated in the source given. It could also have happened before August. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    If the date's not in the source then it's moot, so I've struck my comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ross attempted to obtain Mike Tenay for color commentary, but was turned down by the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) promotion": What does TNA have to do with obtaining Tenay?
  • "Others considered for the job were John Pollock, Mauro Ranallo and Kevin Nash, before GFW settled on Matt Striker": Do we need to include details of people who were not, in the end, involved in the event? If this is the sort of thing wrestling fans find interesting, I'm OK with leaving it in, but it seems a bit peripheral.
  • I'm not very knowledgeable about wrestling, but it appears kayfabe applies to Japanese wrestling too. Wouldn't it make sense to link "scripted" to kayfabe instead of to script (recorded media)? Or is the term not applied to Japanese bouts?
  • Changed the link and the text too. In the period of time that this FAC was up, WP:PW reached a consensus that the old "wrestling is scripted" disclaimer should be rewritten. starship.paint ~ KO 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If you say "the main event" you can't really say "other main event"; you either have one main event or two main events.
  • The Tanahashi/Okada paragraph of the Storylines section goes back and forth in time in order to bring the reader up to date, and it's a bit confusing. I'd suggest sequencing the information like this:
    1. The main event was Tanahashi/Okada
    2. Tanahashi's path to being champion was ...
    3. Okada's path to becoming champion was ...
    4. The two have an extensive history; this is the seventh match between them, etc.
Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Wrestle Kingdom 9's other main event was determined at the November 8, 2014, NJPW Power Struggle event": "event" used twice in a short span.
  • "Nakamura and Ibushi had a previous match at the 2013 G1 Climax": why is this relevant in this article?
  • The 2015 match played a lot off the 2013 match. It was like a sequel... Furthermore, the 2013 match was highly rated just like the 2015 match, it was rated the match of the year by Tokyo Sports. starship.paint ~ KO 02:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    OK -- can something to that effect be added in the text? For a reader unfamiliar with the wrestlers, it seems a bit of a non sequitur, since many of the wrestlers will have had prior bouts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "In one Wrestle Kingdom 9 match": not a very good opening to the sentence, though I can see you have to vary the intros to each paragraph in this section. How about something like "Another title that was contested at Wrestle Kingdom 9 was the IWGP Tag Team Championships" as the lead in?
Changed. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The rivalry took a turn in May 2014": I don't think you can say it took a turn if you've given no previous history. Something like "Wrestle Kingdom 9 also showcased a rivalry between Toru Yano and the Suzuki-gun group, which had begun in 2012 [or whenever]. In May 2014 Yano's tag team partner ..."
  • "...by Fish on Nick. first Chasing the Dragon...": missing "The" at the start of the sentence?
  • One instance of "Styles Clash" is italicized, and one is not; which is correct? I see some other italicized move titles; are these usually italicized in the sources? "High FLy Flow" is also once italicized, once not.
  • They're not italicized in the sources but in wrestler articles Bobby Eaton#In wrestling if the wrestler gives a special nickname to the move instead of its technical name, then they are italicized in Wikipedia like Alabama Jam. starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
    OK -- if it's a WikiProject style and is consistent, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The link from "huracanrana" indicates that it should be spelled with two "huracanrrana"; I didn't fix it because I don't know which is correct.
  • "...with a High Fly Flow crossbody to Okada on the floor. After Tanahashi's High Fly Flow crossbody back in the ring...": assuming these are the same move, this could be compressed to avoid the repetition.
  • "puroresu is, beyond a shadow of doubt, indeed ichiban": I haven't got a clue what this means. If it's important to leave in, could you add an explanatory footnote? Aha; I see a link later for puroresu, but I still don't know what ichiban is.
  • "English-language commentators Ross and Striker "enhanced the show in their own ways": this is a bit vague and I think could be cut. You might need to paraphrase more of Powell's comments in that paragraph as a result, to avoid having almost the whole paragraph be a straight quote.
  • I expanded his review and tried to paraphrase more. starship.paint ~ KO 02:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Martin wrote that New Japan had transcended puroresu and was "some of the most passionate and poignant performance art today." ': New Japan is a group, so we can't say "New Japan is performance art"; it should be something like "has produced some of".

-- I've completed a pass; I'll wait for your responses and then go through again. Haven't looked at the sources yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie and Ribbon Salminen: - thank you Mike for dropping by. I've addressed some but don't have much time now. I'll do more in the days to come. Ribbon you want to handle the Background/Storylines stuff? I'll add more about Powell in the Reception section, at least. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I've struck most points above; I'll look at the remaining points this evening and read through again then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I read through again and made a couple of minor copyedits. I think the text is now fine. I will take a look at sources, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you. For reference, I used the WP:PW/RS wikiproject reliable source list when editing. starship.paint ~ KO 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I did some source spotchecks and only found one issue -- the following is too close to the original and needs to be paraphrased further.

  • Article: "Flipps announced that the stream would not work on Chromecast, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with the application"; source: "Flipps TV is saying ...that the live stream won’t work on Chromecast, Xbox 360, Xbox One, or LG smart TVs. Yes, Chromecast and the Xboxes, three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with Flipps".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. Prose is fine; I didn't do a thorough source review but checked a handful and the sources seem reliable for what they're used for. I did find one close paraphrase and perhaps it would be good if another reviewwer did a couple more spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MPJ-US

Only fair I comment on one of the few other pro wrestling FACs on here. I will be providing more comments over the next day or so.  MPJ-US  20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Prose - nothing jumped out at me on my first readthrough.
  • Images - Going through them it looks like they all have the appropriate tags and licenses needed. The poster being fair use is allowed under the fair use rights so that checks out IMO.
  • Sources
    1. 3 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    2. 4 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    3. 8 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    4. 10 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    5. 19 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    6. 23 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    7. 24 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    8. 41 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    9. 42 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    10. 43 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    11. 45 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    12. 46 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    13. 48 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    14. 49 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    15. 50 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    16. 52 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    17. 53 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    18. 55 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    19. 56 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
    20. 57 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
  • Thanks for the help. I've added dates in those citations. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 21:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Honestly that's all I have, it's a very well written article and from what I can see sources and images check out as well, happy to lend my Support to this. MPJ-US  03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Wrestlinglover, GaryColemanFan, Freikorp, and James26: - notifying editors who commented on the old FACs and peer review - would you comment on the article at this point? Thank you! starship.paint ~ KO 13:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I've been moving and been busy with building a house more than I expected. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.--WillC 08:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Lea Houston[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Sam Houston's third (and final) wife, who became the First Lady of the Republic of Texas, and the First Lady of Texas when it became a state. I have been working on this article on and off since 2011.

An explanation about the names. Houston and Lea are the predominant surnames in this article. To avoid confusion, only Sam Houston is referred to solely by his last name. The others are referred to by their first names. Because the children were often given the exact name as the adults, I have included their nicknames to distinguish who they are. Houston City is how many authors mention the city of Houston when they are writing about Sam Houston. It could be confusing to say "Houston went to Houston." or "The Houstons moved to Houston." "The city of Houston" could have double meaning, because he also maintained a residence there. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

    • File:Sam3.jpg same, plus would benefit from moving to a better name
  • Others seem fine. Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Stifle I have taken care of the above two issues. — Maile (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you, support. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I'm sorry that I probably won't have time to finish this one, but I'll do as much as I can.
  • "They met in between his two non-consecutive terms as President of the Republic of Texas": AHD and M-W say that "in between" (with or without a hyphen) can't be a preposition. You might change this to: just before his second term, or: just after his first.
Changed to "They met following his first of two non-consecutive terms"
  • "during his service as a representative": Politicians are really the only ones who think they're providing a service. "when he was".
Changed
  • "a strong, close-knit family": What's a strong family?
removed "strong"
  • "the man who was arguably the most famous and accomplished individual of his place and time.": I don't know what that means. What would a list of people who were the most famous of their place and time look like? Who would be on such a list?
Changed to "the man who was an accomplished politician in both Tennessee and Texas, and who had won the Battle of San Jacinto during the Texas Revolution"
I like it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "8 children": eight children
Done
  • "to the majority of them": feels a little clinical to me. "most of them"
Done
  • "helping with the children, alternately providing the family with financial assistance and temporary housing, as well as managing the household help": I'd go with: helping with the children, managing the household help, and always providing either financial assistance or temporary housing
Done
  • "The Lea family presence in Texas formed a spiritual bond that helped Margaret convince her husband to": I personally don't object, but the tone isn't standard for Wikipedia. I'd go with: "With the help of her extended family in Texas, Lea convinced her husband to"
Done
  • "Nacogdoches": link it ... and it's an odd-looking name for a town, so I'd put "Texas" after it.
Done
  • I didn't get far, but I hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I've taken care of these. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments –

  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Marriage section are currently unsourced.
I put a citation at the end of the paragraph that applies to both sentences.
  • First Lady of the Republic: "She renamed it Ben Lomond as a tip of the hat to the romantic Walter Scott works she'd read". Contractions like "she'd" should be avoided if possible. I could understand leaving it if it was part of a quote, but since that is not the case I'd suggest going with "she had" here.
done
  • The last sentence of the section's second paragraph could also use a cite.
done
  • Raven Hill and Woodland: "and his concern that he'd had no letters from her in weeks." This has another contraction that should be removed; since you may not want "had had" in there, consider "that he had received no letters from her in weeks" or similar.
done
  • Another in "she'd had with a breast lump", and one more immediately afterward. Try sweeping the rest of the article for any more.
and I checked the rest of the article for possible contractions of 'd, 'nt or 't
  • "while Congress was in session and Houston in Washington, D.C.." Double period here, and the spacing of the abbreviation seems different than what you're using in the rest of the article. Also, if you think a Washington, D.C. link is helpful, it could be placed earlier in the section.
done
  • Houston's profession of faith: The Independence link could be moved up to the first sentence here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Giants2008 I've taken care of all issues. That was a really good catch on the double period and varied spacing on Washington, D.C. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – A nice read overall, and I think it meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Hawaiian-American Union Army soldier who is considered one of the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War"; he was among a group of more than one hundred documented Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation. In recent years, he has become one of the many central figures of interest in a revival of interest of this period of Hawaiian history. This article was nominated as a good article and A-List article and has been peer reviewed. Basically, everything known in the sources directly about this individual is already in the article itself, so there are some questions that I won't be able to answer because no known knowledge exist about it. Renominating. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - noting that I've been involved with this article at the peer review stage. It appears to cover the available sources thoroughly and I don't remember finding any additional material at peer review which should have been added. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: generally looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • ". In 2010, the service of these "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War" were commemorated..." --> ". In 2010, the service of these "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War" was commemorated..."
    • Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Not done; it still said "service ... were commemorated". I fixed it by removing "the service of". - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "he reportedly bursted into tears" --> "he reportedly burst into tears"
  • "Considering him missing, Pitman's regiment didn't discover his final..." --> "Considering him missing, Pitman's regiment did not discover his final..."
  • "the military services of Hawaiians..." ---> "the military service of Hawaiians..."

Support - I reviewed this for GA, since then it has only gotten better. The prose & material is FA quality --Errant (chat!) 15:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note -- Unless I missed it, looks like we need a source review for formatting and reliability; also as I believe this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. A request for these can be listed at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment here.
  1. reference 2: don't Harvard style references use author or editor names; use of the publisher here seems atypical; is that appropriate?
    • The book is a collection of articles by multiple authors, some of them only a few pages long and then I would use another article from that same book, but by another author, so I thought it would better to use the publisher as the common thread of that book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. reference 7 requires registration; should have |website=?
    • How can you edit it for me?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Carter 1897 should precede Carter 1913
  4. DAR 1938 and DAR 1910 are used only once each. Is it necessary to use Harvard referencing in such cases? If the decision is taken to keep the Harvard referencing for these two, consider changing 'DAR 1910' to 'Daughters of the American Revolution 1910' so that the names match in §References and §Bibliography; same applies to DAR 1938
    • Changed to Daughters of the American Revolution.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Daws 1968 links to snippet view; is that appropriate?
    • I don't know although if they are not appropriate, we can just remove them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. How do we know that 'Secretary of the Commonwealth' is the same as 'Secretary of State'? Because Google says so? Title page says Commonwealth.
    • Changed. Thanks for the catch. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Pierce 1958 links to snippet view; is that appropriate? Is this a book or a journal? uses {{cite book}} with |journal=
    • It is a magazine. Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  8. Pitman 1931 links to snippet view; is that appropriate?
    • I don't know although if they are not appropriate, we can just remove them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  9. Rogers in §Further reading: Is this a book or something else? uses {{cite book}} with |work=
    • I am not sure. It was a periodical.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I made these edits. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the numbers in my comments above. Answers here refer to those numbers
  1. I presume that you have read the appropriate section of that book so you can discover the name of the author of that section. The author should be the name in the {{sfn}} and {{cite book}} templates. When the author name is not available, but the editor's name is available, shouldn't we be using the editor name because that name is left-most in the rendered citation? This way we don't astonish the reader who expects the Harvard reference to match the citation.
    • Could we just use the editors name? The problem is this one article is co-written by Justin Vance and Anita Manning, and another article is written by just Vance. In other article I am using the same format and they are using article written by a third author Ruthanne Lum McCunn for example.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. perhaps like this:
    {{cite web |title=1860 United States Census |url=http://www.mocavo.com/Henry-Pitman-B1845-Newton-Middlesex-Massachusetts-1860-United-States-Census/01754860596728994882 |website=[[Mocavo]] |registration=yes |accessdate=September 6, 2015}}
    "1860 United States Census". Mocavo. Retrieved September 6, 2015. (registration required (help)). 
  3. (and others) There are those who think that snippet view does not allow proper verification because the text surrounding the 'seach string' may not be sufficient to provide proper context
  4. 'Commonwealthro'?
I may look more when I feel motivated to do so.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again restored the numbering in my comments.
I do not understand what it is that you wrote about Vance, Manning, McCunn in Shively. It seems that you know who the author(s) is(are) but I got lost in the various references to 'other' articles. Other articles in the source? other articles in Wikpedia? both? If you are attempting to cite two articles (one by Vance and Manning, and one by Vance) with a single citation, that is not proper use of the {{cite book}} template. There are ways to do it which I'll explain if that is what is needed here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: It is a book though so it is not an improper use of cite book. I will use Shively because that is common thread. The book is divided into 11 sections and each section divided into articles written by various historians. The section I am mainly using is the one titled "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" (pp. 130–163) and the articles in that section include 1. Introduction by Justin Vance and Anita Mannning, 2. Eyewitness aboard the USS Santiago de Cuba by Vance and Mannning, 3. J. R. Kealoha by Vance and Mannning, 4. Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent by Vance and Mannning, 5. Prince Romerson by Ruthanne Lum McCunn, 6. Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman by Vance and Mannning, 7. The CSS Shenandoah: A Confederate Raider in the Pacific by Vance and Mannning, 8. Hawaiian Sailor Helps Convict a Slaver by Manning, 9. From Whaler to Sailor Pacific Islanders and the New Bedford Whale Fishery by Laura A. Miller and Marla R. Miller, 10. James Wood Bush by Vance and Manning, 11. Anaconda Plan: The Great Snake by Carol Shively, 12. The Impact of the Civil War on the Kingdom of Hawaii by Vance and Manning. It has the set up of a journal but it is not a journal and if I were to use cite journal or another similar format, I would have to separate each of individual articles I used into their own bulleted source. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I did not say that Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War is not a book. If you are citing more than one article in the book you can create separate {{cite book}} templates (one for each article) or use {{harvc}} to cite the individual articles and the {{cite book}} to cite the enclosing section. Consider this (the four {{harvnb}} templates are a mock-up of how similar {{sfn}} templates would render in §References; page numbers are made up):
in §References:
{{harvnb|Vance|Manning|2015a|p=137}}
{{harvnb|Vance|Manning|2015b|pp=142, 145}}
{{harvnb|McCunn|2015|p=150}}
{{harvnb|Vance|Manning|2015c|pp=152–154}}
in §Bibliography:
*{{cite book|editor-last=Shively|editor-first=Carol A.|section=Pacific Islanders and the Civil War|title=Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War|year=2015|location=Washington, D. C.|publisher=National Park Service|isbn=978-1-59091-167-9|oclc=904731668 |pages=130–163|ref=harv}}
**{{harvc |contribution=J. R. Kealoha |last=Vance |first=Justin |last2=Manning |first2=Anita |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=135–140 |id=CITEREFVanceManning2015a}}
**{{harvc |contribution=Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent |last=Vance |first=Justin |last2=Manning |first2=Anita |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=141–147 |id=CITEREFVanceManning2015b}}
**{{harvc |contribution=Prince Romerson |last=McCunn |first=Ruthanne Lum |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=148–150}}
**{{harvc |contribution=Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman |last=Vance |first=Justin |last2=Manning |first2=Anita |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=151–155 |id=CITEREFVanceManning2015c}}
in §References:
Vance & Manning 2015a, p. 137
Vance & Manning 2015b, pp. 142, 145
McCunn 2015, p. 150
Vance & Manning 2015c, pp. 152–154
in §Bibliography:
  • Shively, Carol A., ed. (2015). "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War". Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War. Washington, D. C.: National Park Service. pp. 130–163. ISBN 978-1-59091-167-9. OCLC 904731668. 
    • Vance, Justin; Manning, Anita. "J. R. Kealoha". In Shively (2015), pp. 135–140.
    • Vance, Justin; Manning, Anita. "Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent". In Shively (2015), pp. 141–147.
    • McCunn, Ruthanne Lum. "Prince Romerson". In Shively (2015), pp. 148–150.
    • Vance, Justin; Manning, Anita. "Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman". In Shively (2015), pp. 151–155.
A reader clicks on a reference superscript which jumps to McCunn 2015, p. 150 above. Reader clicks McCunn and the page jumps to highlight "Prince Romerson". Reader clicks on Shivley and lands on the {{cite book}} citation with the section title. |id= required in {{harvc}} templates because there are multiple Vance & Manning contributions.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Like this [43]?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Because there are three {{harvc}}s all in a column, for the second and third you might want to include |author-mask=2 and |author-mask2=2. For page numbers, you might want to move the page ranges from the {{sfn}} templates to the {{harvc}} templates. Then, at the {{sfn}}s include the specific page (or pages) upon which the source material that supports this article can be found. This way page numbering is hierarchical {{cite book}} identifies the section page range (130–163), each {{harvc}} identifies the page-range of an article (132–135, 146–149, 161–163), and each {{sfn}} template identifies the particular supporting page.
There is a reason that I don't normally have anything to do with FA: it's too nit-picky, as you can see from this discussion of a single reference. So, you should remember that I am not here to specify what you should be doing with this article. Rather, I would hope to help you do what you want to do. The decision adopt or ignore anything that I have written here is yours.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I am a bit lost. I tried those templates but they came out wrong for some reason. I want to do all of this if it means improving the article. Can you help? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what I tried those templates but they came out wrong for some reason means because whatever it is that you tried didn't get saved so the article is in the same state as it was when you posted the diff of what you had done to add the {{harvc}}templates. So, specifically, what did you try and what were the results? Or, better, try again and save so that I can see what it is that you did.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I was using preview. Saved it now. A lot of the steps you mentioned above are not clear to me. The first part of your suggestion doesn't turn out right, and I have no idea what you are suggesting me to change after "For page numbers,..." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant that you should move the page ranges from {{sfn}} to {{harvc}} not rename sfn to harvc. Then at the {{sfn}} that now doesn't have a page parameter, add a |p= or |pp= parameter so that the reader can go directly the the page in the source that supports the statement in the article. So for Vance & Manning 2015a, move |pp=132–135 to the "Introduction" {{harvc}}. At the Vance & Manning 2015a {{sfn}} add a |p= or |pp= parameter that identifies the specific page upon which Vance and Manning claim Kamehameha "denied permission for the men to go as a unit" (or whichever bit of that note is supported by the Vance & Manning 2015a Introduction).
Am I making any sense?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I really have no idea what exactly are you talking about. I can't follow along with your instructions. These templates and stuff are all jargon to me. I have no clue. Thanks for the help. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
With or without it I think the reference format is already above what is needed for FA criteria especially comparing with today's FA on the main page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
One last attempt before I accept my dismissal:
  1. The section "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" occupies pages 130–163. We note that in the {{cite book}}.
  2. The "Introduction" occupies pages 132–135. We note that in the {{harvc}}.
  3. Somewhere in the introduction Vance and Manning write something that supports this sentence in note 3:
    However, in order to avert diplomatic controversy and in defense of the Hawaiʻi's neutrality, King Kamehameha IV and Minister Robert Crichton Wyllie officially denied permission for the men to go as a unit.
  4. I presume that Vance and Manning did not need all 4 pages of the Introduction to say that. I presume that what they wrote is on one of pages 132, 133, 134, or 135. That page number belongs in the {{sfn}} template.
So what we've accomplished is to narrow the focus from the broadest (the section) to the narrowest (the specific page) in an orderly manner.
I stand dismissed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Milos Raonic[edit]

Nominator(s): Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Milos Raonic, a Canadian tennis player who is currently ranked no. 11 in the world. His breakthrough was in early 2011 (when this wikipedia article first received major attention), and he's had a steady climb since then, peaking at #4 last year before injury trouble. He is a two-time major semifinalist, most recently at this year's Australian Open. The article has gone through an extensive overhaul this year (as documented here), been promoted to GA, and has gone through a peer review.

I believe this article meets the FA criteria. I look forward to any feedback you have, and I'm committed to addressing any concerns or deficiencies to the best of my ability. If this nomination is successful, this would be the first tennis player biography to be a featured article; I'm hoping to apply what I've learned during this process to improve other articles as well. -- Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

Oppose - There are numerous unsourced facts. For a FA all statements, which are not common knowledge, require inline citations of reliable sources. Graham Beards (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide some examples? I'd be happy to address any deficiencies. Saskoiler (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but please by mindful that FAC is not the place to fix such errors. These should have been attended to before nominating.
  • He received a wildcard to the qualifying tournament of the 2008 Canadian Open, but lost in the first round to Alexander Kudryavtsev. The match was his first in the ATP World Tour and his last as an amateur.
  • This marked his first singles match against a player ranked No. 1, and his first singles match against a member of the Big Four.
  • He defeated world No. 4 Andy Murray in straight sets in the quarterfinals at the Barcelona Open. This marked his first victory over a member of the Big Four. In the semifinal, he lost to world No. 6 David Ferrer. Raonic lost to Juan Mónaco in the third round of the French Open, and followed this with a second round loss to Sam Querrey at Wimbledon.
  • It marked his fourth consecutive loss in the final of an ATP 500 event.
  • Despite the loss, Raonic saw his world ranking improve to a career-high No. 6.
  • This tied previous matches between Mats Wilander and Mikael Pernfors in 1993, and between John Isner and Philipp Kohlschreiber in 2012. The five set match lasted 4 hours and 19 minutes, with Raonic losing and Nishikori advancing to the quarterfinals. In October, Raonic reached the final of the Japan Open for the third consecutive year, but lost to Nishikori again.
  • Later in the month, he reached the quarterfinals of the Australian Open after beating world No. 12 Feliciano López. He lost to Novak Djokovic in straight sets.
  • At the Indian Wells Masters, Raonic won his quarterfinal match against No. 3 Rafael Nadal, after saving three match points from Nadal in the second set tiebreak. It was Raonic's first career victory over Nadal after five defeats. He lost to Roger Federer in the semifinals.
  • Raonic lost a lopsided straight sets match to Djokovic in the final, his third consecutive loss in an ATP 1000 final.
  • The defeat marked Raonic's first singles match against Djokovic.
  • In 2014, Raonic partnered with Eugenie Bouchard to represent Canada in the Hopman Cup. Raonic won two of three singles matches, and paired with Bouchard to win two of three doubles matches. Canada finished in second place in their pool, behind top-seeded Poland.
  • They have played each other minimally, however. Raonic is 1–1 against Karlović and 0–3 against Isner. Karlović holds a 3–2 head-to-head advantage over Isner.
Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Done I've addressed all of the examples listed above as well as a few others. I had tried to get everything sourced previously (going from 68 citations a couple months ago to well over 230), but I see now that I had left some gaps. I appreciate your feedback and patience. — Saskoiler (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I have struck my "oppose" and I look forward to reading further reviews. Graham Beards (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from starship.paint[edit]

  • Support - all my issues have been addressed below. As a non-tennis editor, this is now is a comprehensive, well-sourced and understandable article. Great work! starship.paint ~ KO 14:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Graham Beards: - if you want to read my extensive review below... starship.paint ~ KO 14:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Review
  • I'll be taking a look at this in the next few days. starship.paint ~ KO 04:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful! I look forward to your feedback. Saskoiler (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Early and personal life
  • Please mention his date of birth in the body; this section.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • His father: one source says his profession is electrical engineering, another says he has a PhD in engineering. But this doesn't mean he has a PhD in electrical engineering. Professional is not equal to studies.
Done - Added a source which confirms the PhD is electrical engineering. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • His mother: source says she has degrees in computer and mechanical engineering, article does not.
Done - Added this detail. After much searching, I couldn't confirm which discipline the master's degree was in, so it is left unstated. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • His siblings: article does not mention she is nine and he is eleven years older than him, source does. Good detailed work on his family anyway.
Done - I've added their age differences, and also their schooling. I think the family's academic background are important to show why choosing to become a professional athlete would have been a difficult decision. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There are contradictions between the Ace Age article and the one by the Toronto Star. TS says he was six when introduced to tennis, AA says age seven. Just note both? "aged six or seven"
Done - Good catch. I tried to resolve the disperity, but could not. Both sources agree that his time with Curtis started in 2009, but one says start in 2007 with a two-year gap, and the other says start in 2008 with a one-year gap. I've taken your advice for "six or seven". Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Toronto Star says he had "weekly, hour-long sessions" in 1997 at Bramalea Tennis Club after head instructor Steve Gibson recognized his potential. The move to another place was soon after this, not soon after the one week camp. This is worth mentioning.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Toronto Star emphasized his parents did not interfere in his coaching. Worth mentioning?
Done - Yes, I think so. It's part of their emphasis on academics. Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Toronto Star: “Our only condition was ‘good in school,’ ” says Dusan. “Great marks.” “An honours student,” pipes in his wife. “Below that? No way.” A smart kid on and off the court, Milos kept his side of the bargain... So, how did Milos do academically, where and what did he study? There's no mention in the Wiki article. Source mentions Thornhill Elementary School. Source also says "he agreed to start taking university courses by correspondence at the University of Athabaska in Alberta."
Done - I've added elementary and high school detail here. (university is addressed later in article) Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Lede infobox does not mention coaches Casey Curtis and Steve Gibson.
Done (Curtis) - I've added Curtis to this list. As his coach for ~9 years, he absolutely belongs. That was a glaring omission.
Not done (Gibson) - I have not added Gibson, however, for a few reasons (a) It was a very brief relationship (once a week, less than a year). (b) It wasn't one-on-one... source says "group sessions". (c) Raonic himself says that Curtis is his first coach (d) I searched hard, but could not find any other source article that even mentions Gibson. So, since it seems to be a more casual relationship mentioned by only a single source, I think it is best to limit it to one sentence in prose and skip the infobox. Any more seems to be undue weight. Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Why use "2011 Canadian Open" instead of "2011 Rogers Cup" per the source and per that Wiki article's title? Also mention he was recovering from injury at that time of being the analyst, the source sais that.
Done (mentioned injury) Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: "Canadian Open" vs "Rogers Cup" - When I began working on the article, there were all sorts of inconsistencies in references to tournaments. For example, a tournament might be referred to as "Canadian Masters" in one paragraph, as the "Rogers Cup" in a different paragraph, and then as "Canadian Open" in the performance timeline tables. But it's all the same tournament, and this is confusing. So, after scouring the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines and talk pages (where it has been discussed many, many times, with varying degrees of consensus), I opted to (a) use tournament names consistently throughout the article (and on the companion career statistics article) and (b) in general, use the non-sponsored names as these are more "stable" over time. For example, the Canadian Open has been referred by numerous names over history. In particular, for the significant tournaments (majors and ATP 1000, which includes the Canadian Open), I follow the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines for performance timelines, which is used on hundreds (or thousands?) of tennis player pages. Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please mention that Monte Carlo is in Monaco. Also mention that he chose to stay there because of proximity to his tennis club (good to get a name of this, it's not the Monte Carlo Country Club which is in France). “I go downstairs, get balls, and practise,” Raonic said. Source: “It’s relaxing; nobody bothers you. Nobody cares who you are.” When he travels to Barcelona for his blocks of training time with Blanco, it’s all tennis. “Monte Carlo is a place I can go, and just clear my mind. And it’s not that far — a one-hour flight.”
Done - I've located another source (video) which confirms that his tennis club is the Monte Carlo Country Club, and then cleaned up the sentence to be more relevant. (Mentioning his home club is much more relevant than other players who happen to live there.) Saskoiler (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry I went through this with a comb LOL. I don't edit tennis so I tried to be careful. Also could you find out why his family moved to Canada? starship.paint ~ KO 13:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Philanthropy
  • I'm not seeing it in the sources that he launched his foundation on 14 Nov 2012. However, it was apparently registered on 22 Feb 2012.
Done - Looks like the registration date was Feb 2012, then the first press conference some months later (couldn't find a good source, but I came across photos), and then had its first big fundraising event in November. All of these are "launching" the foundation in a way, so I just fell back on saying the foundation was launched in 2012. I also added details from the previous year when Milos sought out philanthropic advice. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sources say (the star) which aims to help children needing prosthetic limbs play sports and (official foundation) In the initial stages of its work, the foundation will focus, in particular, on children with physical disabilities. and (ATPworldtour) In this stage of its work, The Milos Raonic Foundation will focus on children with physical disabilities and, especially, children in need of prosthetic devices that will enable them to reach their full potential. which I think is worth mentioning
Done - I've added to the mission statement quote. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not in the source that the "inaugural fundraising event for the foundation—dubbed "Raonic Race for Kids"
Done - I've cleaned this up. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The Race for Kids seems to be a multi-team competition with well-known captains. Not exhibition matches as "featured exhibition matches between Raonic and Andy Roddick, and between Serena Williams and Agnieszka Radwańska" seems to indicate. According to the source for the second Race, the first Race was won by the team of "the Aces". Please find out more about the first Race and reflect the nature of the Races accordingly. It's also okay to list more notable captains and their profession. starship.paint ~ KO 02:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Done - I've cleaned this up as well, by reorganizing the paragraph and identifying one additional source. In the first year, they had both a "Raonic Race for Kids" event and "Face Off" tennis exhibition matches the next night. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Overall a stellar effort in answering my queries so far. I hope to be able to take another look at the article on Monday or Friday. starship.paint ~ KO 10:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Playing style
  • Unfortunately, The Tennis Island seems like a Wordpress blog. Is Jeff Donaldson a notable figure in tennis to ensure reliability?
Done - I wasn't able to find much about the author of that article to validate its reliability (although the article seems valid based on my experience). So, I replaced it with two sources - one is a video analysis showing Raonic doing the inside-out forehand (from a tennis player/coach), and the other is a mainstream newspaper which notes that he prefers the shot. Many other newspaper articles mention the shot as a strength of his, or a preference, etc. Saskoiler (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, is Sports Mole reliable?
Done - I think the site is reliable. In this instance, the quote was accurate. However, since the key was really just a single quote from the press conference, I replaced the source with the press conference transcript. (In general, the "playing style" section is one of the hardest to provide sources for. The statements made there consistent with comments by announcers on just about any match of Raonic's, but I don't know how to source comments made during broadcasts in a verifiable way. Finding them in newspaper/online sources is harder.) Saskoiler (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Rob Cherry Tennis seems like a questionable source.
In this case, the cited source is a 68-second video of footage from the 2016 Australian Open which has been annotated to demonstrate how Raonic is running around his backhand to hit an inside-out forehand. In the footer, it says "... an ITF iCoach Expert..." which links to here. That site is, according to this, an official coaching platform for the International Tennis Federation. It identifies Rob Cherry as a 20-year coach, and establishes him as an expert (i.e. someone who can analyze/recognize an inside-out forehand). I believe this is trustworthy. Saskoiler (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Saskoiler: This said he was a hothead. This alluded to poor mental strength. Any other information on this issue? starship.paint ~ KO 07:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: "Mental strength" (inner thoughts) is such a subjective term, and I think different writers mean different things by it. The source you mention: "Mentally...Milos has a lot to improve. ... The step he has between himself and the top players is more mental." This source, from earlier the same year (2012) says: "The kid’s mental strength is remarkable". Or, from the 2016 Australian Open match vs Murray, this source says "There is still question marks over his mental strength", while this source uses an image caption: "Mental strength: Raonic won the third set with relative ease". I will keep searching, but I'm not sure I can write anything coherent and meaningful on the topic based on sources I've read so far.
On the other hand, the other source you mention ("a hothead") may be something to build upon. I've heard that very early in his career, he used to be demonstrably emotional on court... behavior that could be described as a hothead. For the last several years, I would say he's just the opposite, practically robot-like. So much so that when he smashed his racquet during the 2016 Australian Open SF, it was absolutely shocking. So, I think there may be something to build upon with respect to his outward display of emotions, which is less subjective than "mental strength". I'll need to search for other sources, however.
Okay, I've researched this a fair bit, the result of which is a new paragraph saying (1) at young age, he was described as hothead (2) as he got older, he was described as the opposite (analytical, stoic, robotic) (3) he ties his systematic demeanour back to his parents. I was not able to find any second opinion that mentions anything close to the "hothead" comment. Hope this works. - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Equipment and apparel
  • SportsProMedia says The new deal, negotiated by Raonic’s management team at CAA Sports, will also see New Balance extend its support for the Milos Raonic Foundation - worth including.
Done Saskoiler (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • At first, he wore a blue fisherman's sleeve to cover a rash he had due to an allergic reaction to massage cream. This was replaced with an athletic compression sleeve, which is worn for comfort only, and often colour-coordinated with his on-court apparel. - needs references (which I think are already elsewhere in the paragraph) There was a mention of a basketballer's sleeve.
Done (inline reference) - Copied an inline reference down to cover other sleeve details.
Not Done ("basketball sleeve") - I didn't alter the language to include "basketball sleeve" in the prose. After reading at least a half dozen sources, I believe that "basketball sleeve" is just a synonym along with more general terms such as "arm sleeve", "arm compression sleeve", "compression sleeve", "athletic sleeve", and "athletic compression sleeve". In light of this, I've kept the most generic (and yet descriptive) term: athletic compression sleeve. Basketball players, football players, baseball players, etc. all wear these things on their arms. I believe "basketball sleeve" (or "shooter sleeve") may just be a marketing term to sell more in NBA shops, because it was basketball athletes who appear to have made them popular. Hope that makes sense. Saskoiler (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright, it's fine. But I don't think the reference says that the fisherman's sleeve is blue.
Done - Removed the word 'blue'. Saskoiler (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you should also clarify what His other sponsorship deals are, like Aviva is insurance, etc.
Done - To be honest, my first reaction was that this was a trivial suggestion. However, once I looked at the new sentence, I see the value. It provides a more comprehensive view of the diversity of companies (not "just" companies that market to tennis players) that have find value in the Raonic brand and his marketability. So, thanks! Saskoiler (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You're welcome.
  • For his sleeve, I believe the US Open reference says that the sleeve is also worn because Raonic is used to the routine of wearing it, and his team supports it. So it's not exactly just for comfort...? My team would say it helps me. I haven't found a reason to argue that so far.” “With a guy like Milos, who is so specific on what he does every single day with his preparation, it’s just become part of his whole process,” Nunn said. ... "I'm not gonna argue when things are going OK,” [Raonic] said, smiling
Done - Tweaked the language. Saskoiler (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Rivals and contemporaries
Done - Both references to Bleacher Report replaced with alternate, higher quality sources with richer analysis. Thanks for all the feedback to improve the article. Saskoiler (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A Fan Obsessed and Globalite Sports are blogs?
Done - Both sources have been removed. Saskoiler (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Amateur career
  • Is it worth mentioning that Bradley Klahn is American? I don't know how tennis doubles work really, in terms of nationalities
Not done - I wouldn't oppose if you had inserted it, but I don't think it is necessary. Doubles partnerships often span nationalities (probably the majority of the time). The article doesn't specify the nationalities of too many other players. Exceptions include Pospisil (special relationship), Nishikori (notable because Raonic played him in Japan Open), and various national representation sections (Olympics, etc.) Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright.
  • ten ITF Futures events, three ATP Challenger Tour events, and one ATP World Tour event - can you state that ITF Futures are third-tier events for professionals, Challenger is second-tier and World is first-tier? Would help inform unaware readers like me.
Done - Very good point. Saskoiler (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Raonic had received scholarship offers from several colleges, including the University of Michigan, Princeton, and Northwestern University - I don't see this in the Ace Age source.
Done - Moved citation from later in paragraph. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • committed to play for the University of Virginia that fall while studying finance - I don't see this either.
Done - Moved citation from later in paragraph. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • While he took correspondence courses from Athabasca University - this is in the Ace Age source. Please add, and if possible, find out what course.
Done (both) - Globe and Mail article: "...he would take university finance courses online..." Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • How did you figure out the deadline of two years for reaching the top 100 and thus referred to a ranking of 933? Is that date mentioned in the Ace Age source?
Done - The canada.com article, dated September 2, 2008 said "Yesterday, the word was that Raonic has stiffed Cavaliers head coach..." → On September 1, his ranking was 933. However, I changed the language of that sentence to be a bit more generic (since no source pins the exact date of the conversations and "deadline deal" with his parents) and just give his ranking range for that summer. I think it reads better now. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay!
2008–2010
Done - Well, actually I just changed the wording to "ITF Futures" to be consistent with the 8 other mentions of "ITF Futures" in the article. Saskoiler (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning from How Milos Raonic served his way to the top of tennis source: Raonic was ranked around 400 in the world in late 2009 when Niemeyer took over as his coach.
Done - No 377 Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Who coached him before Niemeyer and after Curtis? 2008-2009 seems to be unaccounted for.
Done - Found two sources mentioning Guillaume Marx as coaching Raonic while he was based at the National Training Centre. Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • When exactly did Blanco start coaching Raonic and what was Raonic's ranking then?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The referencing in the Raonic's coaching relationship evolved paragraph needs to be tighter. Stuff like because he had a young family isn't covered by the provided source. Please double-check all the claims in this paragraph...
Done - I think the paragraph is much tighter now. Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mention that he was knocked out in the second round of the 2010 Canadian Open after the giant-killing act.
Done Saskoiler (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Saskoiler: more comments. Raonic failed to meet the top 100 deadline set by his parents, didn't he? starship.paint ~ KO 10:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he did. By approximately 5 months. (Assuming he made the deal in late August 2008, his ranking didn't enter the top 100 until January 2011.) Do you think that should be mentioned? If so, I think probably the best way to do it is to add a parenthetical note to the paragraph where the 2-year-deadline is mentioned, saying something like "(Raonic would later enter the top 100 in January 2011, missing the target deadline by approximately 5 months.)" and citing the rankings history. Yes? Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's acceptable! Please do that. "around 5 months", please. starship.paint ~ KO 07:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Done Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Temporarily struck the above. Could you replace TennisEarth and Tennis Ledger with better sources? starship.paint ~ KO 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
2011
  • Last paragraph, state he injured himself at Wimbledon against Gilles Müller?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
2012
  • How about stating he broke into the top 20 for the first time on 2012.08.13 at #19?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
2013
  • Can you find a better source than Sports Interaction?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • State that he was ranked #10 when he was "ranked within the top 10 for the first time"?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
2014
  • What was the nature of the injury which caused him to pull out of the ATP Tour Finals?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
2015
  • Could you shift Ljubičić's picture to the bottom of this section?
Done - Well, actually I moved the Raonic picture down to preserve the left-right-left-right picture placement scheme. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • How about an update of his ranking at the end of 2015? He was #14 from 2015.11.02 to 2016.01.18, the first time he fell out of the top 10.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The Moya stuff should be starting the 2016 section.
Not Done (but improved) - I think it belongs at the end of 2015 for a couple of reasons. [1] The beginning of the relationship goes back to right after Ljubičić left, developed through the IPTL, and was finalized in 2015. (Raonic says "And then it was decided and sort of put together just before the new year.") [2] I think it reads better to combine this in a single "coaching/team changes" paragraph with the departure of Ljubičić (and his long-time manager). To reflect this, I've bolstered that paragraph with additional detail and sources. Okay? Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
2016
  • Mention that he rejoined the top 10 at #10 on 2016.05.02?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe he was recently eliminated from the French Open.
Done - And also added McEnroe hiring - Saskoiler (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
National representation
  • How did Canada do in each of the Davis Cups? It is unstated for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015.
No change I've chosen not to include any other Canadian team results in this article for a few reasons: [1] Canada's performances have been not been very noteworthy, bouncing between wins and losses each year and not "going deep". In some cases (like the victory over Israel in 2011), Raonic wasn't a key contributer (because he didn't play much or at all due to injury) and thus it's not really part of "his" story [2] The main article for Canada's performances contains this detail. Instead, I chose to focus on the noteworthy matches/years: (a) Raonic's first match, first victory, first (and only) time he played three rubbers (b) 2013, when Canada reached SF. Raonic played a major part in this performance, with 5 wins in 6 rubbers over three ties. Other player articles (e.g. Nishikori, Federer, Djokovic) tend not to list every Davis Cup performance, but rather focus on noteworthy matches or those where the player made the finals, etc. (However, Andy Murray's article is an exception in that it has tremendous detail on every year. I think this is undue weight, however.) Fair? - Saskoiler (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • State that Canada's second place in the pool meant that they didn't qualify for the Hopman Cup Finals.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Lede
  • What exactly does the "Tennis Canada Media Guide". Tennis Canada reference source cite? Do you mean to refer to page 20 of this PDF? If so, cite the PDF. starship.paint ~ KO 01:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I recall thinking that the 2016 PDF URL would eventually die, so I thought linking to the "base page" (Tennis Canada publications) would be clever. Then, when it is replaced by the 2017 media guide, etc, the link would still work. However, I've now just put an archived URL there.
Ideally, I'd like to have that PDF included in the references once, and then be able to link to specific pages for different citations. (For example, the media guide is used twice now, and perhaps more in the future.) However, I don't know how to do that. Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I figured it out. Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Saskoiler: Okay! See my comments above! And how about this for the lede? He has remained in the world's top 20 since breaking into it in August 2012.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Starship.paint: I believe I've now addressed all of the questions raised above. Thanks for all your efforts. Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Saskoiler: - for the Davis Cup issue, see this edit of mine. Everything else was settled well. I'm impressed at all the work you've put in, and apologize for the exhaustive review. I'm putting my Support for this comphrensive, well-sourced and understandable article. If you agree with the Davis Cup issue, I'll transfer my support to the top of the review. starship.paint ~ KO 12:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I like your Davis Cup edit, and wish I had thought of it myself. I appreciate all of your thoroughness. This is my first time through this process, and I've learned a great deal from your many insights. The article is better now, both in the prose and in the supporting sources. Saskoiler (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Saskoiler: You're very welcome. (I put my support at the top now). I didn't know it's your first time, and actually I have just one FA myself. I'm trying for a second FA with this FAC. It hasn't received any comments yet, would you be able to comment? Thanks :) starship.paint ~ KO 14:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Fyunck[edit]

I added a required key for the performance chart. I added commas to the scores in the records section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I also just ran it through the ndash checker and it fixed a couple minor errors. Overall this is is well done article per Tennis Project guidelines. It has a consistent use of of correct "world No." as opposed to "World No.". Scoring in prose (except for extraordinary feats) is correctly eliminated (as opposed to so many other articles). Photos are at their limit (we try to keep it to about 10) but they show backhand, forehand, serving, return of serve, volley... so a good variety of his particular tennis shots. I'm not sure we need a picture of a coach he had 4 coaches ago (of his total of 8 coaches). His stats look up to date, and the overall sourcing is impressive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and for the feedback, Fyunck. I've certainly tried to be consistent with other tennis biographies, while at the same time following the WP:MOS and other guidelines. As to the picture of his former coach (Ivan Ljubičić)... (a) he was the coach during the most successful period of Raonic's career so far and (b) he was the coach as recently as November, 2015. So, I don't think there is any harm in keeping it in, at least for now. I could not locate a current (free) image of any of his current three coaches ( Moya, Piatti, or McEnroe) in a coaching situation. I'll keep watch in the future, though. Saskoiler (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Giants2008[edit]

  • Philanthropy: I'm normally not one to recommend the addition of too many links, but I think a link for the Canadian Football Hall of Fame would be helpful in the second paragraph of the section. While I'm here, this is usually presented as "Hall of Fame" rather than "hall-of-fame", unless Canadian media does it differently than we see in the U.S.
Done (both the link and "Hall of Fame"... it is the same in Canadian media from what I can tell) - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Amateur career: Minor, but ref 55 should be outside the parenthesis mark, not inside.
Not Done - The current placement (inside the closing parenthesis) follows MOS:PUNCTFOOT, which says "Exceptions: ... where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 2008–2010: "were the first singles matches for Raonic against a top 100 player and against a top 10 player, respectively." For tighter prose, remove the second "against a". They're just redundant in this context.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "So, Tennis Canada arranged...". If I know my fellow reviewers as well as I think, they won't like "So" very much. Although longer, "As a result" or similar would be more formal.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 2012: If we haven't explained the concept of the Big Four in men's tennis before now, we probably should here. Otherwise, a lot of readers will end up lost when they see that.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As a general comment, you don't have to repeat the first names of Raonic's opponents once you include them in the first mention. I see a bunch of the first names of people like Federal and Djokovic who appear frequently.
Done (partly) - Due to the length of the article, I've tried to compromise by including the first name only on the first instance per section. So, Eugenie Bouchard is mentioned (by full name) in the Philanthropy section. Then, she is mentioned by full name again in the Hopman Cup section the first time, and then by surname after that within that section. I tried to find something about this in the MOS, but couldn't locate anything. (If I've missed something, please let me know.) I think this is a reasonable compromise now. Okay? Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
From MOS:LASTNAME: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Done - Thanks for the link. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 2015: The quote about how his foot was a preexisting issue has writing that doesn't fit well with the sentence as a whole. Consider paraphrasing this one, or add a couple of words in square brackets to make the writing better (namely "a" after "was" and "was" before "made"). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thank you for the suggestions and feedback. I've addressed all of your comments above. Please let me know if you have any further feedback for this article. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 2016: Remove "the" before "Milos Raonic Tennis", since that isn't in the quote from the source and is messing up the prose.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Olympics: It looks like "player" is missing in the middle of "Japanese Tatsuma Ito". Or you could just say "Japan's".
Done - As a side note, tennis commentators (and media) often use phrasing like "Japanese Tatsuma Ito" or "Swiss Roger Federer". I must have lapsed into this habit, even though I agree that style of phrasing does not belong in this article. Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Raonic and Pospisil: Contraction should be fixed in "they've played each other in two ATP World Tour matches".
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • All caps in ref 22 should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Done - @Giants2008: Thanks again. I have addressed this set of suggestions. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – This looks like a pretty good model of what a tennis player article should look like. My main piece of advice is to make sure you control the size of the article in the future, because it has the potential to become bloated as Raonic's career progresses. However, that is merely something to consider for the future and isn't something that I would withhold support over. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks for all your constructive feedback, your FAC support, and for your kind compliment. Regarding the article size: [1] If his career ended now, I think the various sections are appropriately weighted. [2] In the future, I would expect that organic editing will probably reduce the first decade of his career with the benefit of hindsight. For example, as part of this year's editing, the earliest years of his career (2007-2010) have been trimmed by over half. Middle years (2011-2012) were cut as well. Much of the expansion (from this January 30 version) was adding more encyclopedic content to "other" sections like "early and personal life", and in significantly expanding references. - Saskoiler (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

2008 UAW-Dodge 400[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2008 UAW-Dodge 400, the third race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series held at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. The 267-lap race was won by Roush Fenway Racing's Carl Edwards who was later penalized 100 points for a loose oil lid on his car's oil reservoir encasement. This article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and I believe that it is up to the required standard. All comments welcome. Z105space (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support It really is a shame that your articles don't get more attention, as Jaguar says, this article is excellent. Will211|Chatter 00:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • There are a couple of bits of information in the lead that aren't in the body, from the first couple of sentences of the lead. The lead is supposed to include only information that's in the body, rather than be an introduction that doesn't need to be repeated in the body. I think if you repeat the first two sentences, verbatim or close to it, before the "Background" section of the "Report" section, that would work.
    • I've removed bits that are not in the body. Z105space (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      I guess I wasn't quite clear on this. If you chop off the lead, what is left should serve as a complete article. Currently your first section starts talking about the track. It should start with some sentence such as "The 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 was the third stock car race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series", and tell the reader what we're talking about. The lead just summarizes the rest of the article. That's not what you have here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      FYI, I've asked about this point here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I have chosen to add the remaining parts of the lead into the main body as a result of the discussion. Z105space (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
        Sorry, I don't see this. I've just edited the first paragraph of the body to show you what I meant; I cut the crowd size since that's mentioned below. You don't have to do this with a simple repetition from the lead; a glance at other articles will give you ideas on how to merge the information in the first paragraph, but at least this does the job. Feel free to delete what I've done and do it another way, but the straightforward declaration of the facts (it's a stock car race; it's in the 2008 Sprint Cup series; it was held in Las Vegas on 2 March 2008) needs to be in the first couple of sentences in some form or other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
        I have only slight alterations to avoid simple repetition from the lead. Z105space (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "dodging to avoid" is redundant; how about "swerving to avoid", or just "dodging"?
    • I've changed it to "swerving to avoid"
  • "He was joined on the grid's front row by Edwards and felt his car had oversteer during his run": this is an odd pairing of two unrelated bits of information. Wouldn't the note about oversteer be more naturally included in the previous sentences?
    • Not that I know of but I have moved to an earlier sentence. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      You've removed it from this sentence, so I've struck my comment, but FYI as far as I can see you haven't re-added it elsewhere -- did you mean to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It is after the sentence where I talk about many cars were allowed qualify for the race. Z105space (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Bowyer drove up the track and hit the outside wall": what does "track" mean here? Per this I assumed it meant racing surface, but that doesn't seem right, as then every driver would have driven up the track and you wouldn't have mentioned Bowyer doing so.
    • You are correct in that track means racing surface.
      OK, then I don't follow the sentence. To me, driving "up the track" means driving along it. Do you mean he moved to the outside of the track and went too far and hit the wall? Sorry to ask what are no doubt basic questions to a NASCAR fan, but other readers will be as ignorant as I am so it does need to be clear for them too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Four laps later, Edwards started to challenge Kyle Busch for the lead, while Jeff Gordon had moved up to third on lap 18, and Martin had fell back from third to eighth by the same lap": a couple of problems. You don't want "had" for something that postdates the previous comment; and "had fell back" is ungrammatical.
  • "the third caution was triggered when Stewart's right-front tire burst, and made heavy contact with the turn two wall": as written this means Stewart's tire made contact with the wall, which I don't think is what is meant.
  • I removed one instance of "fell down to nth place" but I see there are several more. Is this standard usage? It seems redundant to me; just "fell to nth place" is cleaner.
  • "On the same lap, Gordon passed Busch, who fell down another position": why "who fell down another position"? Isn't that implied by the rest of the sentence?
    • Removed "who fell down another position".
  • "Biffle and his teammate Kenseth drove alongside each other in a battle for second place on lap 166, until Biffle escaped and ran onto the apron on the next lap": I don't follow what happened here, probably because I don't know what the apron is. Could you add it to the glossary of motorsport terms and link it?
    • I've added "apron" to the glossary and linked it. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 02:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "officials located debris in the turn two groove": suggest linking "groove" to the glossary.
    • It is now linked to the glossary. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 02:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The post-race section has a lot of quotes. I don't have any objections to any specific quote, but I think it would be a good idea to go through and try to convert some of them to paraphrases -- the fair use justification for these quotes is weaker the more of them you have.
  • This sentence seems to be incomplete: "a device or duct work that permitted the car from one area of the interior of the car to another" -- permitted what?
    • It permitted air to pass through the car. Z105space (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not an issue for FAC, but is there any reason not to make some of the tables at the end sortable?
    • It is the way how I create tables. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      The qualifying, race and post-race points tables have been made sortable and sortnames have been added to the appropriate areas. Z105space (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
      As I said, not a requirement, but it's a convenience for readers and I think is worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

-- That's everything I see on a first pass. Most of the points are pretty minor. I think the only issue I'm concerned about is the quotes. I went back and looked at the other NASCAR FAs and this article is in line with the usage there. I'd like to hear from other reviewers on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the first source:

  • Jayski's Silly Season Site
    • Article: "Hornish scraped the turn-two wall early in the session"; source: "Hornish scraped the turn two wall early in practice". Too close to the original.
    • Article: "Kyle Busch won the third pole position of his career, and his first at Las Vegas Motor Speedway": source doesn't say it was his first at this track.
    • Article: "he came down the track and Kyle Petty hit Bowyer's rear-end and damaged his front-left fender": source doesn't say Petty hit Bowyer's rear end.
    • Article: "Reutimann did the same and scraped the outside wall, causing right-rear damage to his car. He was black-flagged by NASCAR because parts were hanging from his car"; source: "Reutimann slipped high and smacked the wall, doing right rear damage, NASCAR finally black flagged the #00 as parts were hanging off the car". Too close to the original.
      • I've reworded this as much as possible. Z105space (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, what makes jayski.com a reliable source? Per the about page, it's run by a single person. It's owned by ESPN but it doesn't appear that they exercise editorial control over the site. Our article on the site says that Adamczyk "continues to be the operator". -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I've raised the question of whether this is an RS at the RS noticeboard; please join the conversation there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have decided to abstain from the any review of RS for Jayski. Z105space (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    OK, though I don't think it's necessary. I've posted a note at the NASCAR project to let editors there know about the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've struck most of the points above. I'm going to nudge at the RSN for comments on jayski.com; I'd prefer to get more eyes on the discussion, since I gather it's used in many NASCAR articles. Once that's addressed I will look at more sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No response at the RSN. Is there an ESPN page where jayski.com is linked, so that it can be seen that ESPN regards jayski.com as a good source for NASCAR news? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The note just posted at RSN is good enough evidence for me that jayski.com is reliable. I will try to continue looking at the sources tomorrow; I'm in the middle of several reviews at the moment so it might be a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. I checked three or four more sources for close paraphrasing and found no other issues. I have not done a full source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "turn-two wall", "turn two groove": consistency in hyphenation, when "turn two" is used before a noun.
  • "  1,700 feet (500 m) long": Use adj=on in the template.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: Thanks. Much appreciated. I've addressed your comments Z105space (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Image Review (done by Saskoiler)

  • Copyright status
    • Re: military flyover photo . The source URL for this photo is dead. Looks like it has been moved to here.
    • I checked all eight images, and all have acceptable status. [1] Own work - public domain [2, 3, 5, 6, and 7] Flickr with acceptable CC licenses [4 and 8] US Government - public domain.
  • Captions
    • "Military flyover before the start of the race." ← According to WP:CAPFRAG, sentence fragments should not end in a period. Should probably reword or drop the period.
    • "Carl Edwards celebrating his second consecutive victory of the 2008 season." ← Ditto. Also a sentence fragment.
    • Otherwise, captions are suitable.
  • Image choice
    • The last image shows Ryan Newman. It's an okay photo, but the large NASA logo is slightly misleading/confusing, leading a reader to wonder what NASA has to do with this photo or this article. Perhaps it would be better to swap in a more neutral photo, like this one or this one? (Admittedly, neither of these were taken on the day of the race, but then neither is the current image.) Or maybe just crop it?

-- Saskoiler (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler: All your points have been actioned. Z105space (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic. Looks good now. - Saskoiler (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Old Pine Church[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This article details the history, architecture, and spatial environment of Old Pine Church, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This article was written in the same style and format as four other Featured Articles on NRHP properties: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), and Literary Hall. All guidance is welcomed and appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Dirk.willems.rescue.ncs.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, thank you tremendously for the image review. I've added the necessary US PD tag. Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment by Johnbod The architectural section is full, not to say exhaustive. Congratulations on avoiding ascribing inappropriate stylistic labels. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and other comments

  • I ran Duplication Detector on each linked source in the article. No issues of concern showed up. (See the next editor's comments below. Apparently, Duplication Detector doesn't flag well on PDF.)
  • Nice job with the measurement conversions.
  • Question? Is there a way you can link something to help the reader know what triune immersion is? I'm a little unsure myself if that means they got dunked 3 times, or if they did it in the name of the Trinity. Is it perhaps like this:
(Dunk #1) "In the name of the Father..."
(Dunk #2) "...and the Son..."
(Dune #3) "...and the Holy Spirit..."
  • I believe I've mentioned before how much I enjoy reading your articles about old churches. You really excel at detailing the architecture and interiors. You do it so well, I can close my eyes and picture standing inside that church, seeing everything you have described.

— Maile (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Maile66, thank you so incredibly much for taking time to complete this review, and for your kind words! I am a huge fan of yours! I will address your comments within the next 24 hours. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I have a fan? Shazam! After you get through with this, if you have some time, I could used help with a review of Margaret Lea Houston. Not a lot is happening on that template. But only if you have time. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Maile, I've clarified the statement on triune immersion and have found a source, J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Protestantism (2005). You were correct that triune immersion involves the dunking of a new believer three times, once for each entity of the Holy Trinity. Take a look at the statement's current formatting and let me know if you have any further suggestions or edits. I will definitely take a look at Margaret Lea Houston as soon as I have a moment and have addressed Singora's issues with this article. Thank you again for your thoughtful review and suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Maile, is this new description of triune immersion acceptable? Thank you again for your review, and please let me know if you see any other outstanding issues. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Oh, sorry. Guess I forgot to say your description of triune is fine. It works well. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Architecture section Singora (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the positive feedback re: this article's architecture section. What follows is a comparison of the Wiki article and the PDF source.

  • Singora, thank you again for your review of this article. As you stated below, these descriptions are a bit difficult to word differently from the original source, as the architectural descriptions can only be altered so much. I will go one by one, and will address each of the similarly-worded sentences you have identified. Take a look at each one and let me know if they are sufficiently changed to be acceptable for your approval. Thank you again for taking the time to review this article and identify these sentences. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Wiki: Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, front gable log building
  • PDF: is a large, one-story, front-gable log building
    • Revised version: "Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, gablefront log building." We are quite limited here, as there are only so many ways to say that the building is large, one story, and has a gablefront or front-gable architectural form. Let me know if this is different enough. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, facing to the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors
  • PDF: The symmetrical façade, facing west, includes a central entrance with double-doors, each wooden with four panels
    • Revised version: "The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, which faces toward the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors." There are only so many ways to state that the church has a symmetrical façade, that it faces west, and that it has one central main entrance with two doors that consist of four panels. I am definitely open to suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal balustrade
  • PDF: Two concrete steps with a modern, metal balustrade lead to the entrance
    • Revised version: "The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal handrail on either side." I've changed balustrade to handrail as it is more appropriate, but again, it is what it is. As always, I am definitely open to a suggested rewording. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is located over the church's main entrance
  • PDF: A small sign reading “Old Pine Church” is located over the entrance
    • Revised version: "A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is situated over the church's main entrance." Is this sufficiently different by changing located to situated. A white sign with black lettering placed over the main entrance can only be described in so many ways. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: The main entrance is flanked on either side by one nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden window (MY NOTE: the word "flanked" implies "on either side")
  • PDF: Nine-over-six doublehung sash wood windows flank the central entrance (MY NOTE: notice the correct use of the verb "flank")
    • Revised version: "The front façade also consists of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows which are located on either side of the main entrance." I've modified the structure of the sentence, without any usage of flank or flanked. Let me know if this is sufficiently different. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south, feature two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows
  • PDF:The north and south (side) elevations each have two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wood windows
    • Revised version: "The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south directions, consist of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows, which are placed symmetrically." Is this worded differently enough. As always, I am open to suggested rewordings. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: Between the two windows on the church's north elevation is located an exterior concrete block chimney of modern construction
  • PDF: A modern exterior concrete block chimney situated between the two windows is on the north elevation
    • Revised version: "Between the two windows on the church's north elevation is an exterior concrete block chimney." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: The east (rear) elevation of the church is also symmetrical in plan, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the other two windows
  • PDF: The east (rear) elevation is also symmetrical. It has three nine-over-six double-hung sash windows with the center window elevated above the other windows
    • Revised version: "The rear elevation of the church, which faces toward the east, is also symmetrical in layout, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the windows on either side." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Wiki: The church's windows have been repaired throughout its history, with materials compatible to those originally used
  • PDF: The windows were repaired at some point, but compatible materials were utilized (MY NOTE: the Wiki version "throughout its history" is not implied by "at some point")
    • Revised version: "The church's windows have been repaired with materials accordant to those originally used." -- West Virginian (talk)


  • Wiki: The church's interior exhibits an open architectural plan. Against the rear (east) wall, centered underneath the middle window, is located a simple wooden frame pulpit
  • PDF: The interior of the building has an open floor plan. A simple wooden frame pulpit is situated against the rear (east) wall, centered under the middle window
    • Revised version: "The church's interior exhibits an open architectural plan.[7] Against the rear wall, centralized underneath the middle window, is located a plain wooden frame pulpit." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


And so on. I guess this kind of stuff is not always easy to re-write.

  • Singora, thank you for taking the time to review this article, and for highlighting some of the close wording. This was a bit difficult because there are only so many ways you can describe these features. I will go through and try to fix each sentence from the article that you'd identified so that it is not as similar as the source. Thank you again. I will be getting to this within the next 24 hours. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Singora, I've finished rephrasing or otherwise revising the above-mentioned sentences. Thank you again for your review. I will re-review the architectural section to see if I can further reword these sentences. Please let me know if you have any suggestions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Singora, please re-review the article for any further close wording. Corinne from the Guild of Copy Editors was kind enough to review the article, and provide a further copyedit of the architecture section. As stated above, architectural writing is difficult because some descriptions can only be described appropriately using similar wording. Please take another look and let me know if you identify any further issues. You'll notice in your selected sentences above that I took special caution not to duplicate the wording of the original source. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Image review: no issues. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


More from Singora Singora (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've re-read this and to be honest it's sub-par. In the lead, for example:

  • 1. "The church is believed to have been utilized by German Methodist settlers"
    • I've reworded the sentence as thus: "The church is believed to have also been a meeting place for German Methodist settlers." Does this work better? -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • 2. "By 1870, Old Pine Church was primarily used exclusively by ....". This sentence appears twice in the article.
    • This has been changed to "By 1870, Old Pine Church was primarily used by the Brethren denomination." -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • 3. "The church and its adjoining cemetery were added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its ..."
    • I've removed "adjoining cemetery" as this sentence is merely meant to reference the church's architectural significance. The sentence now reads: "The church was added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its..." -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the Restoration section. You've got:

In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to conduct a restoration of Old Pine Church. It is probable that during this restoration the boarding room addition was removed from the church structure; there are no extant remains of the addition. During the restoration, the church's unpainted weatherboards were painted, a new roof was installed, the original windows were repaired, and the original wood floor was replaced. The pressed metal ceiling may have been added during the restoration.

Every sentence uses the word "restoration". How about something like:

In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to restore Old Pine Church: the church's original windows were repaired and the unpainted weatherboards painted; a new roof was installed and the original wood floor replaced. The boarding room addition was probably removed (nothing of it now remains) and the pressed metal ceiling may have been added.

  • I've added this suggested re-wording to the restoration subsection. Let me know if you have any further suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Do CTRL+F and search for the word "located". You'll see 13 results, many of which are in the Architecture section. Losing them all should be easy:

  • You: Along the foundation of the church's perimeter are located fieldstones ...
  • My suggestion: Fieldstones span the church's perimeter foundations ....


  • You: Located centrally against the rear wall, underneath the middle window, is a plain wooden frame pulpit
  • My suggestion: A plain wooden frame pulpit stands against the the rear wall, underneath the middle window


  • You: The church's small wood-burning stove was originally located in the center of the sanctuary but was relocated to the church's north wall ...
  • My suggestion: The church's small wood-burning stove originally occupied the center of the sanctuary but was moved to the church's north wall ...
    • I've used your suggested rewrites for the aforementioned sentences. I've also modified further uses of "located" throughout the article. Please take another look and let me know if you find any other sentences in need of further tweaking. Only four uses of "located" remain. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

More errors:

  • "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren were in use of the church, led by Dr. Leatherman"
    • This has been modified to "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren was worshiping at the church and was led by Dr. Leatherman." -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Old Pine Church continued to utilize the church and worship there"


And so on.

  • Singora, I've incorporated your suggested edits, and I have made further modifications to the article. Please take a look and let me know if you find anything else that inhibits this article from receiving your support for Featured Article promotion. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your thoughtful guidance and suggestions. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Singora, I just wanted to touch base with you to ensure that you were aware of the necessary changes that I have made to the article. I have incorporated your suggestions, and have made further changes. Please re-review when you have a chance, and let me know if you find any outstanding issues or problems. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Singora, I am just checking in to see if you have had a moment to review my responses to your concerns, and subsequent changes in accordance with those concerns. I just want to ensure that I have adequately addressed your comments. Thank you! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Singora, do you have any outstanding issues with this article precluding promotion? Let me know, and I will make the necessary changes as soon as is possible. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "have a "minimalist appearance".": Per WP:INTEXT, attribute it or paraphrase it.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Dank, thank you for taking the time to engage in a thorough and comprehensive review and its corresponding edits. I added an inline citation after "minimalist appearance" per your suggestion and per WP:INTEXT. Please let me know if you see any outstanding issues with this article. Thank you again for your review, and thank you tremendously for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, West Virginian. I am impressed by your gracefulness and graciousness. I will comment below in a minute.

Lead

  • Lose: unincorporated community. Move it to the body.
  • Lose: U.S. state. Move it to the body
  • Delink German
  • Replace most uses of: Old Pine Church with the church
  • Remove as many scare quotes as possible
  • Replace image caption of: Old Pine Church, viewed from the west, facing the church's front elevation. with Front of the church. Do not use a full stop as this version will be a sentence fragment per MOS:CAPFRAG. Use the present version as alt text (using the alt= parameter).
  • Delink common words like siding, bark, ceiling, pews
  • Define extant somehow without making a reader click on a wikilink
  • Suggest leaving exact date of adding to the register for the body of the article
  • Expand the first use of the convert template using the abbr=off parameter and switch; for distance, area, volume, etc.

Will be back later to comment on the remaining sections. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this thorough and comprehensive review of the Old Pine Church article. I apologize for my belated response. I have made all the necessary modifications for this section, with the exception of one suggestion. Could you be more specific regarding your suggestion for defining extant? Please elaborate further on your suggestion for defining extent, and let me know if you have any further suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, West Virginian. The belated response only had me worried for the sake of all the hard work you have put into this FA Candidacy. I was afraid it might get tabled in your absence. Glad to see you are back on the con. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax, because of your review, this article is definitely in a much better position for promotion to FA status. Thank you again for your suggestions. It has been my mission to get every NRHP listing in Hampshire County to FA status, so I am determined to get this one through, too! Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Location

  • Image caption is not succinct. It is not being used as Fair Use so there is no need for an extended caption. It is Mill Creek perhaps in the Fall.
  • Expand use of the U.S. initialism at first use in the article body to United States
  • For the {{convert}} template use abbr=off for each unit measure for first use in body of article
  • Do (West Virginia Secondary Route 220/15) and U.S. Route 220 overlap in their usage? Redundant to a degree?
  • Substitute the church for most instances of Old Pine Church. I won't mention this again.

More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, again, thank you for your review. I really appreciate this! I've made all the suggested edits for this section, per your guidance. West Virginia Secondary Route 220/15 is a side road that radiates off of U.S. Route 220, so it is not redundant to state them both. Let me know if you have any further suggestions for this section and I'll make the necessary changes as soon as possible. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

History

Background
  • Saying Mill Creek valley once is enough, IMHO. Use The valley going forward after that where practical.
  • Use abbr=off for first conversion of acres in body of article
Establishment
  • Define the first use of extant in the body of the article
  • I wanted to clarify what you meant by defining extant in the article. Should I change this to existing?
Brethren affiliation
  • Define Brethren even though it is wikilinked
  • Brethren is later defined in the article through the description of their use of triune immersion. Would moving this information earlier in the paragraph satisfy this suggestion? Thank you again for your guidance.
Restoration
  • How much money was spent on restoration? Were there any donated hours or goods?
  • Unfortunately, this information was not available in the available references.
Current use
  • Six citations seems like overkill for the first little paragraph :-}
  • I know it looks like a lot, but to properly cite all the information shared in this first paragraph, I need to include the reference for each piece of information.

More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, thank you again for this review. I addressed your concerns and suggestions for this section above. Again, I wanted to clarify what you meant by defining extant. Your review, and your suggestions are greatly appreciated and have greatly improved this article so far! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, West Virginian. Maybe use documented in place of extant? If the shoe fits that is. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Architecture

Church exterior
  • The image here looks a lot like the infobox image so is fairly redundant. I would suggest replacing it with an image of a nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden window which is hard to describe, but a picture says 1000 words.
  • Delink bark, siding and metal roof
Church interior

More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, all done! Let me know if you find anything else in this section. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Cemetery

  • Delink granite and chicken wire
  • Is it a cattle gate or is it a cattle guard? I mostly see guards in place in lieu of gates for places that get traffic. If it is a gate, it really would not matter what kind of gate it is.
  • Maybe use documented instead of extant. 25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17.
  • Did you mention any of the types of trees that are in the area? Other than the Oak?

Probably pretty well done with comments. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, thank you again for your thorough review of this article. As for this section, I have de-linked the suggested words, and I have also changed extant to remaining. This area is primarily mixed oak. There may be other tree species in the mix, but the large trees in and around the church's property are oak. Please take another look at the article and let me know if you have any further suggestions or guidance. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: Well, it only took me a month (serves me right for not checking my talk page), but I did give it a review. Short and sweet version, no problems that I can see. Well sourced, great use of books rather than weblinks. I love it when an article is sourced almost entirely (or completely) by books. It really shows the hard work put into the article. Good use of photography as always. All and all, another great article. :) Apologizes for the delay. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18 on June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:33 on June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, thank you so tremendously much for taking the time to engage in a review of this article. Neutral homer, I always appreciate and value your guidance, and I am so thankful for your support. No apologies necessary for the delay; I apologize to you for my delayed response to this statement. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

SMS Körös[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a river monitor that served successively with the navies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during WWI, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, during WWII. During WWI she fought along the Danube from Belgrade to its mouth, and even made a foray across the Black Sea to Odessa. During WWII she was scuttled, raised, and later mined, after which she was raised again and broken up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I feel you should explain why there were charges on the bridge to begin with. 23 editor (talk) 12:48, 21 April 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) 20:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support: looks pretty good to me, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I wonder if the lead could be tweaked a little to clarify that the monitor remained in service throughout the inter-war years. It probably wouldn't need much more than a short clause after the part where you mention the renaming to Morava
  • the launched date of 5 February 1892 only appears in the infobox, I suggest mentioning it in the body of the article;
  • same as above with the commissioning date of 21 April 1892
  • " Equivalent to a Austro-Hungarian..." --> " Equivalent to an Austro-Hungarian..."
  • in the References, Sondhaus should appear before Stein

Hello, Peacemaker67, I have gone through the whole text and my review is below. Additionally, I also have an FAC up there I hope you will check out. starship.paint ~ KO 13:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • fought the Serbian Army, the Romanian Navy and Army, and the French Army from Belgrade to the lower Danube during World War I. - how about the English and the Russians mentioned in the Serbian campaign?
  • She was designed by Austrian naval architect Josef Thiel, and laid down at Budapest on 30 March 1890 - firstly, what does laid down mean? Secondly, was the ship designed in 1890, and if not, when was it designed?
  • Is there a particular reason for the Wiki-link to Danube Flotilla when there is a previous link to Austro-Hungarian Navy?
  • Körös was badly damaged later in the campaign - is there further information on this? What damaged it, how was Koros damaged, what was damaged, repairs done?
  • I am not a history warfare editor and so there were several terms I did not recognize. Thus far I have managed to understand them after adding Wiki-links; other clarifications were done too in these edits and these other edits.
  • The lede and body never actually mentions World War II anywhere but in one header, could you add that into the text for clarity.
  • Immediately after the armistice - which armistice? Could you write and Wiki-link?
  • lede: most were obliged to surrender / body: The larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo on 14 April before they were obliged to surrender. - "obliged" seems like a weird word to use in this case (in my view surrender is a choice and not forced), perhaps use ... before they surrendered to the _____".
  • ... in which she served as Bosna, alongside her fellow monitor Sava, - wasn't the Sava scuttled too? If it was repaired, it could be mentioned together.
  • ... she was raised and broken up - by who?

CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican Professional wrestling championship, promoted by the oldest still active wrestling promotion in the world (founded in 1933). It has recently been through a really good GA review and passed, it's also benefitted from a number of Feature List Candidate review for other CMLL championships where I have applied improvement suggestions across all championship articles. I believe this has all the characteristics of a Featured Article, hopefully you will agree.  MPJ-US  00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments – MPJ, I'm sorry that this hadn't attracted any reviewer attention before now. Wrestling articles at FAC have had trouble getting reviewers pretty much since I first started commenting here. I have no knowledge at all of lucha libre, but let me see if I can get things started.

  • First off, did we ever discuss at FLC whether the CMLL champion lists (List of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champions in this case) should be split from the main articles? This isn't an overly long article, so someone will probably ask about that at some point. I can't remember it being brought up, but if it was that would be helpful for others to know. You'd probably remember that better than me anyway.
    • That is going back a while but I believe that there was a limit, I want to say 10 champions, before we should even consider creating a seperate list - and then only of the main article actually has enough content to not just be a short, subbish article. This being a GA I think it meets this criteria, MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • General question: Is "Light Heavyweight" normally capitalized in this context (meaning when not part of the title's name) in lucha libre coverage? If not, you should decapitalize all instances in the article that aren't part of belt names. If so, feel free to ignore this comment.
  • "Because Lucha Libre puts more emphasis...". Our article doesn't capitalize the second word of "Lucha Libre", so why would it be capitalized here? While I'm here, the term could stand to be wikilinked. I'm not normally a fan of using many links, but it might be helpful to readers since it looks like this form of wrestling is unique when compared to the American version.
  • "La Mascara is the current CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champion in his first reign, who won it...". Since "who" refers to La Mascara, his name would optimally be right before the comma. How about using "The current CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champion in his first reign is La Mascara"?
  • Remove the hyphen from "over-all".
    • Fixed MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You left no space between "15th" and "overall", and the latter word has one too many "l"s. Needs a couple more tweaks. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "History: "positioning the NWA title as the highest ranking title in the Light Heavyweight division and the Mexican National title positioned as the secondary championship." Reads a little awkwardly. Changing "and" to "with" would probably be enough to fix it.
  • You don't need to fully spell out the NWA twice in this section. The one in the second paragraph can be abbreviated.
  • "with The CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship created to...". Don't think that "The" should be capitalized here.
  • Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "8 days later Dr. Wagner, Jr. won the title back before returning to Mexico." In these situations, just spell out the number at the start of the sentence or reword it to move the number away from the beginning.
  • Again, "over all" should probably be one word.
  • Reigns: "Only two men have held the title more than once, both Dr. Wagner, Jr. and Atlantis have officially held the title two times." Minor, but the comma could stand to be a colon or semi-colon.
  • "due to an injury to the reigning champion or that champion stops working for the promotion". This could use "when" before "that".
  • The wrestler's name Rush is missing from "In late 2013 then light heavyweight champion".
    • Fixed MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You did fix it, but I just noticed that Rush and El Terrible both have unneeded repeat links. That should be handled as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Rules: "The official definition of the Light Heavyweight division in Mexico is from 92 kg and 97 kg." "and" should be "to".
    • Fixed MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
      • "Now this needs "is" before "between". Not sure why that was removed, but it should definitely be put back. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "However, in the 21st century the official definitions has at times been overlooked for certain champions." "definitions" probably shouldn't be plural here.
    • It's not just the defintion of the light heavyweight division but all the definition of all the divisions. Plural still inappropriate??
      • No, but in that case "has" should be "have", which is plural in nature here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "With a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" title". Last word should be plural.
  • 2013: "starting on January 22, 2013 and the finals held the following week." Add "were" before "held"?
  • Another "over all" here.
  • Is Footnote 1 referenced by where it appears in-text? I couldn't find a source directly in the note.
    • Yes it's right after the note in the text, I am not aware of a way to get a reference inside a footnote? MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The all caps should be taken out of "MEXICO" in references 2 and 8.
  • Date formatting in the references should be consistent. I see a couple of ISO dates, but most of them are fully spelled out. It will be less work to convert the ISO dates than the others, so I recommend that option. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you @Giants2008: I appreciate Fthe input, and yes most FAC for pro wrestling often die on the vine due to lack of attention, does not help that I have been busy IRL and not done my share of FAC reviews. I am hoping to address this starting this weekend.  MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I believe i have addressed it all now.  MPJ-US  22:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: - Could you please check to make sure my updates are approriate? If so perhaps lend your support? Thanks in advance.  MPJ-US  16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I went and performed further copy-edits for you. In particular, I did a bunch of edits to make the article compliant with MOS:JR, the newest part of the Manual of Style that the FAC community doesn't seem to know much about yet. and removed some wordiness in places. Before considering a support, I'd like to see Starship's comment about the most significant CMLL championship fully addressed. It looks like you're close to finding a solution, and I encourage you to work with it until you find something the two of you can agree on. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Support – Now that Starship's issue has been resolved, I'll go ahead and support. It is a short article, but it is the kind of subject where I doubt there is too much more to say in sources that wouldn't be questioned here. Perhaps there is more in wrestling websites, but without knowing much about their reliability at this level I don't want to push the point. The nominator seems to have done a good job of sticking to print publications and the like, and I wouldn't want to see a step back in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from starship.paint[edit]

  • Support after my review is concluded with issues addressed, this is a comprehensive article! starship.paint ~ KO 02:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
History
  • References 2-9 are books/print. Are there any e-book versions available via Google...?
    • I am not aware of any I have the actual books in print myself.  MPJ-US  02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I helped you add URLs to those books I could find via Google Books.
  • Can I confirm that the first sentence with "1933" is supported by [4] or [5]? I would advise to cite references for these sentences.
    • Yes one covered the 1933 sentence. MPJ-US  02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no mention of the Spanish name of the title in the body of the article. It should be referenced too, in the body.
    • I will put that in.  MPJ-US  02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: - thank you for your input.  MPJ-US  02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Good. I'm still looking through and more comments will come. starship.paint ~ KO 02:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Rey Escorpión defeated Volador Jr." This is the "finals" for the vacant championship, right? It should be stated so, then.
  • According to the list of reigns page, Rush gave up his Light title to get a title shot for the Heavyweight title, this can be mentioned with the appropriate reference.
    • Clarified  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't see the above two comments being addressed... was your edit accidentally undone? starship.paint ~ KO 02:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Reigns
  • I just noticed that the Rush vacating title and Escorpion winning was mentioned both in the History and in the Reigns section. I think one mention is enough...
    • Well the history section is to cover Rush vacating, the reigns section is more about Escorpion winning  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "Oftentimes a championship is vacated due to an injury to the reigning champion or when a champion stops working for the promotion" - this is a contestable claim requiring a source. You can change "oftentimes" to "sometimes", and source with (injury vacation: WWE's Bryan/Rollins) and (working vacation: AAA's Alberto El Patron).
    • Addressed and since it's a lucha title I went with two luch examples - Mistico II vacating the Welter title due to a motor cycle injury and CMLL vacating tag becaus Hijo del Santo stopped working for them.  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Nice!
  • You say that there are fifteen reigns by fourteen wrestlers in this section and in the lede. Fifteen reigns does not include Aquarius but fourteen wrestlers does. If Tajiri's reign is not counted, there are only thirteen wrestlers. Please fix this inconsistency.
      • Better math skills now ;-)  MPJ-US  23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Rules
  • Looking at the reference, the "official definition" seems to be dated to 2001. I think that's worth a mention.
    • Not sure what you mean by that? mention that it was defined in 2001? the definition pre-dates that by at least 70 years with most division dating back to the early days of lucha libre. And yes it's 15 years old but they have not changed in 85ish years now so I don't believe that's a problem? MPJ-US  03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay never mind about 2001. How about mentioning that the official definition comes from BOX Y LUCHA LIBRE PROFESIONAL DEL ESTADO DE MEXICO? starship.paint ~ KO 05:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I believe I addressed this by clarifying that this is the lucha libre commission defined weight limits, hence "official". Does that work?  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Fine!
  • "With a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" titles" - this sentence, is it sourced? It's also a contestable claim requiring a source.
    • Well "contestable" may be a stretch IMO, the CMLL page lists 12 championships with the word "World" in the title. But that page does have a reference for each of the most recent champions, I can easily grab those 11 sources and put them on the page I suppose. MPJ-US  03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Since you said that, I Wiki-linked it for you. No need for the 11 sources. But the contestable part is actually the other part of the sentence "the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being promoted as the "main" championship of the promotion". Sorry, I wasn't clear. starship.paint ~ KO 05:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I see what you mean - that's a tough one. So the WWE title is the top title - but not because the WWE said so, but by it being the focal point of most main events, gets the most storyline focus etc. with CMLL there is not one single title that gets that kind of focus, heck some of them go ignored for months on end. Titles are generally a second tied underneath "Apuestas" (mask or hair matches) in CMLL's pecking order, the Apuestas often get the main events of the big shows - title matches are more to build to the Apuestas. I am just not sure how to source what CMLL's booking pattern has been in the last 83ish years.  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
          • How about writing Despite a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" titles, the most highly promoted matches tend to be Lucha de Apuestas matches? I based that from reading the main events of the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre Anniversary Shows...? starship.paint ~ KO 02:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
            • How about the reworded sentence now??  MPJ-US  23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
              • @MPJ-DK: I like your addition. But I would ask that the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being consistently promoted as the "main" championship, instead be removed if the Mondo Lucha book does not support it. Does it? starship.paint ~ KO 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
                • @Starship.paint: the Mondo Lucha book is a little vague on that part. I would really like the article to reflect that CMLL does not have "That One Big Championship" because that's the truth. Just trying to figure out how to source such a statement is the challenge right now. I have some various Year in Review magazine editions I won on eBay years back, I may go through those to see if I can source that the main event title spot does not always go to the Heavyweight title.  MPJ-US  23:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
                  • It's already quite established that the main event match spot does not always go to the Heavyweight title. Looking at the Anniversary Shows easily establishes that. However, that does not prevent the Heavyweight title from still being the main championship defended. Usually, placing on the card determines importance. If you can find that in some years, the main event or semi-main event / second last match had other championship matches than the Heavyweight, then it should be fine. Of course, you need a source for this starship.paint ~ KO 23:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
                  • @MPJ-DK: see this comment. starship.paint ~ KO 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
                  • @MPJ-DK: any update? starship.paint ~ KO 03:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (Out dent) @Starship.paint: - So I have gone back through CMLL's major show history, I stopped at 2013 when I did not find a heavyweight title match but did find three other singles title matches listed. I am trying to find out when the last title defense was, so I can reference that as part of the "it's not the main title" section. I did not think it would take this long.  MPJ-US  16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Do the additional details work?  MPJ-US  16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @MPJ-DK: - yes, yes, that is great research and it largely works. The only (minor) concern that I have is that when you write Since 2013 and The last time a ... these kinds of statistics have to be constantly updated, you have to be aware of the results of the CMLL major shows and update this article in the event the statistics change. Personally I would prefer to change Since 2013 to From January 2013 to May 2016, and when 2017 rolls around you can change it to From 2013 to 2016 so that there is less chance for inaccurate statements. What do you think? starship.paint ~ KO 00:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @MPJ-DK: - I'm really close to stamping my support ... so address this :D starship.paint ~ KO 13:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
        • @Giants2008 and Starship.paint: - Sorry I have been sick for the last couple of days and did not get around to addressing this. I updated the time period to be more specific. Does that work?  MPJ-US  13:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
          • @MPJ-DK: yes that is fine. Hoping for your full recovery if you haven't had one. starship.paint ~ KO 02:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good work on finding the other promotions where the title was defended.
Tournaments
  • It would be helpful to insert a reference for "from September 15 to October 26, 1991". That's all for my comments today! starship.paint ~ KO 03:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: - I believe I have fixed your concerns or answred your questions.  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Lede
  • Because lucha libre puts more emphasis on the lower weight classes, this division is considered more important than the heavyweight division, which is considered the most important championship by most promotions outside of Mexico. - I don't recall seeing this in the body. This needs to be sourced too..
  • I did a copyedit for the whole article.
Further note for Reigns section
  • Shouldn't La Mascara be the shortest reigning champion and not Jerry Estrada?starship.paint ~ KO 07:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Good call on La Mascara, I added that and stated the date he would surpass Jerry Estrada if he remains champion - that way it's clear when the article would need to be updated.  MPJ-US  00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That's great. I like it!

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

  • "[5][4]": Picky, I know, but we're generally looking for [4][5] unless there's a good reason not to do that.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support, I have also addressed the [5][4] source issue. MPJ-US  23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Notes -- Did I miss image and source reviews? Also, it seems to have been a long time since your last FA, MPJ, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. A request for all these can be made at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I did not realize the separate reqwuest space for that, thank you @Ian Rose:. It has been a while since I had one pass for FA - and perhaps the fact that I did not realize there was a request space maybe why my last two FACs has less participation than I had hoped.  MPJ-US  14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Image Review (by Saskoiler)

  • Copyright status
    • There are three images, all with acceptable status. One is own work (public domain), and the other two are both from Flickr with CC licenses for attribution-sharealike.
    • Both Flickr images are attributed to author "Carlos Amapol", but Flickr suggests "Carlos Adampol Galindo". I think this should be fixed, ideally including a link to the author's Flickr page too. (Re: Best practices for attribution)
  • Captions
    • "Dr. Wagner Jr., who lost the championship in Japan without it being sanctioned by CMLL." → This is not a sentence, and should therefore not end with a period (re: WP:CAPFRAG).
    • Other two are good.

-- Saskoiler (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review @Saskoiler: I believe I have addressed all issues?
Yes. All looks good now. - Saskoiler (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

Hi Ian I tried to do some spotchecks and ran into a little trouble.

  • First: Ref number 2 (Royal Duncan and Gary Will (2000). "Mexico: CMLL EMLL Light Heavyweight Title". Wrestling Title Histories. Archeus Communications. p. 395. ISBN 0-9698161-5-4.) and ref number 8 are the same book (Royal Duncan and Gary Will (2000). "Mexico: EMLL CMLL". Wrestling Title Histories. Archeus Communications. pp. 395–410. ISBN 0-9698161-5-4.), so that should be fixed. This book isn't available online - not even in snippet view, so it can't be checked. (I just noticed that ref 5 is also the same book)
  • I have the actual book, I won it on eBay some years ago. So page 395 is the listing for the CMLL World Lightweight Championship specifically and used to source statements about the Light Heavyweight title specifically. Pages 395-410 lists all championships brande as "CMLL World" (Heavy, Light Heavy, Middle, Welter etc.) and it used to source a statement that applies to all the championships. And yes ref 5 is from the book too, different pages. I tried to be as specific as possible with the page indicators here instead of having one more generic reference that says "pages 390-391, 395-410". MPJ-US  03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref number 7 (Madigan, Dan (2007). "Okay ... what is Lucha Libre?". Mondo Lucha A Go-Go: the bizarre & honorable world of wild Mexican wrestling. HarperColins Publisher. pp. 29–40 and 114–118. ISBN 978-0-06-085583-3.) is linked and available online, but I can't find any of the information its verifying. Certainly there isn't a close paraphrasing issue, but I am a little concerned that a variety of search terms doesn't bring me even close. But g-books being what they are, perhaps someone else should take a look. Or perhaps I've lost my touch.
  • I have the book so I'll get it out and see what exactly in there is used to support the statements in [7]. MPJ-US  03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • My book is still packed away after we moved so it's not readily available. I tried to check the "Google books" site, but it does not actually cover the chapter. It skips from page "37 to 272", but that's not the page labeled as "37" since the foreword is not numbered. I don't think the online version includes either of the chapters I cited, I think the only options is that I would have to get the book out to confirm content for you.  MPJ-US  03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of the other sources are in Spanish, so we'd need a Spanish speaker to take a look. I can't sign off on this, unfortunately. Also I noticed some of the sources need work, i.e I'd think Howstuffworks should be in italics (is this even reliable?), and HarperCollins usually has two "L"s. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed the typo in the name and the italics, will look into the "How stuff works" source - to be honest I took that off other wrestling articles that used it, so I am not sure of the reliability. For the Spanish language sources, my Spanish is fair when it comes to reading it but google translate or built in browser translators usually handle the Spanish language web pages pretty well.  MPJ-US  03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply. I think you'll need a full source review and generally the spot checks aren't done by the nominator, that's why I said we need a Spanish speaker. Pinging Ian Rose again so he's aware. I've done all I can here. Victoria (tk) 03:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just it be clear, I did not offer to do the spot checks, I offered a way for a non-Spanish speaker to actually check spanish language sources, just trying to help the process along.  MPJ-US  12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Theodore Komnenos Doukas[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most fascinating figures of Byzantine history. An ambitious, capable, and quite ruthless man, who sidelined his nephew, captured Thessalonica from the Latins and almost succeeded in recovering Constantinople and restoring the Byzantine Empire, only to be defeated, captured and blinded by the Tsar of Bulgaria. He was then released when the tsar became infatuated with his daughter, deposed his brother to regain Thessalonica, and ruled it via his sons for several years before it was captured by the Empire of Nicaea. In a final act of defiance against Nicaea he urged his nephew the ruler of Epirus (whom he had deposed at the beginning of his reign) to launch a joint attack against Nicaea, where he was finally defeated and captured, ending his career. The article is as comprehensive as it can get, relying on the main biographical work on him (Varzos) and complementing it with several other scholarly histories and articles on specific aspects of the period. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR without problems, and I feel it is ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "Giovanni Colonna (de)", " William I of Sancerre (fr)": terminate this template (at FAC at least) with extreme prejudice. If you don't want the link to be red and you know there's a reasonable article at de.wp or fr.wp, write a stub on WP.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks Dank for your edits and the support. I've created a stub for Colonna, and will go about creating short articles for the other redlinks as well. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Just to be clear ... a few redlinks at FAC (within reason) is fine. It's the "(de)" template that isn't fine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Theodor_I._Despot_von_Epirus.jpg: need more information on the source - it would appear that the given tags are for the coin itself, but not the photo
    • Hmmm, accoring to its description, it is taken from a catalogue, hence probably scanned. I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of copyright law in this case, but it can be replaced with File:Theodore Comnenus-Ducas cropped.jpg, which is fully licensed.
      • I've replaced the image.
  • File:Stefan_the_First-Crowned,_fresco_from_Mileševa.jpg: source link is dead
    • And what is the recommended solution here? Whatever the source, as a medieval 2d-object it is PD or not?
      • Is an alternate source available, or an archived link? It would be good to have a source available for verifiability purposes, so that someone could check that the description is accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
        • It has been archived by the Wayback Machine, link added
  • File:Epir1205-1230.png (original source of the map) - on what data source or pre-existing map is this based?
    • It is itself base on File:Epirus 1205 1230.svg. I don't know the author nor what sources he used, but it more or less matches what is described in the article. I thought about whether to remove this map, but it is evident from its design that it is not meant to be an exhaustively accurate representation of Epirote territorial extent, but to give a general overview. For this role the map is both useful and quite correct. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Tsar_Ivan_Asen_II_cropped.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This looks interesting, and I look forward to reading it and adding further comments. In the meantime, may I suggest that you don't use the phrase "fall of Constantinople" in the lead when referring to the city's capture by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, since this term is generally used in connection with its capture by the Ottomans in 1453. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton! Good point regarding the 1204 sack. I'll change it right away. Looking forward to your review! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, here's The first instalment, taking us to about midway through the Epirus section, and very interesting it is, too. My comments are mostly concerned with prose issues, mostly minor in themselves, but collectively indicating that further attention needs to be given to this aspect. Two recurrent faults are (i) overlong sentences and (ii) a tendency to editorialise rather than observing strict encyclopaedic neautrality:
Lead
  • The first sentence/paragraph is overlong and somewhat convoluted. I suggest a break after "from 1224 to 1230", followed by: "He was also the power..." etc (I'd omit "real" as redundant)
  • How relevant is the "bastard" description? Why not just "half-brother"?
    • Well, Michael was an illegitimate son, and this is often stressed in the sources.
    • Maybe, but we don't have to blindly follow them without reason. However, it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "advanced as far as" → "advanced to"
  • "In that year, Theodore diverted the army amassed to besiege Constantinople against Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank." Not entirely clear as worded. Perhaps: "In that year, Theodore used the army he had amassed to besiege Constantinople to attack Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank"?
  • "the splitting off of" is clumsy. Perhaps "the dispossession of"?
    • "Disposession" is not what is meant her; I've rephrased for clarity.
  • Who was "John Asen"?
    • The Bulgarian tsar John II Asen, who is mentioned and linked in the previous sentence.
  • "he installed his eldest son John as emperor in his stead" – last three words redundant
    • The "in his stead" was necessary in so far as it linked this act with his own blinding, which disqualified him. I've rephrased for clarity.
  • "suzerainty" needs a link
  • "In 1246 Vatatzes overthrew Theodore's unpopular younger son Demetrios and annexed Thessalonica" – when did Demetrios enter the picture? The last we heard, Thessalonica and its environs had been left to Theodore and John.
    • It is mentioned at the beginning of the lede, where it is implied that Demetrios succeeded John; I've rephrased for clarity.
Early life and career
  • "a daughter of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos" I'd say "Byzantine Emperor"
  • "notably refers to him" – "notably" is editorialising and should be removed.
  • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns (2nd para)
  • "an apologist for Theodore". Better clarify, as the last Theodore mentioned was Laskaris. The sentence is overlong anyway, and would be better split after the end of the quotation.
    • "Theodore" on its own refers throughout to the subject of the article; the distinction is quite clear IMO with "an apologist for Theodore, he provided valuable services to Laskaris," and the continued juxtaposition of the two in Bardanes' text. I've split the sentence up, though.
Ruler of Epirus
  • This single section runs to 2,500 words. It would greatly assist readers to navigate the section if it was divided into subsections
  • I repeat: this section is indigestibly long in its present form, and for the sake of your readers needs to be subdivided. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "Dyrrhachium and Corfu had been recovered" – when had they been lost? Also I suggest you lose "as well"
  • "As Michael II was illegitimate and too young..." This needlessly repeats information given in the preceding paragraph
    • I prefer to keep it, as the context here is different and I feel it bears repeating.
  • "It must be noted that" – editorialising, remove. The content of these two sentences needs to firmly attributed to sources, e.g. "X and Y have noted that..." etc
    • I moved this to a separate footnote. Regarding to attribution, this is not a matter of opinion or dispute between scholars, it is one of usage and helps clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader who might wonder why, when the main article on the Epirote principality is at Despotate of Epirus, this article goes out of its way to avoid naming it thus.
  • Another overlong sentence beginning "The Principality of Arbanon...", and can you explain what "the Epirote orbit" and "magnate" mean (maybe use a pipe-link for the latter)?
  • And another long one: "Stefan II then sought..."
  • "the homonymous archbishopric": I think you mean "eponymous" (homonyms are words that sound the same but mean different things, like "hole" and "whole"}
    • Quite right, I'm quite embarrassed at getting two Greek words mixed up...
  • The wording "...was particularly important. Indeed..." etc needs to be re-thought (see above re editorialising). Unless you are paraphrasing a specific source it needs to be rephrased neutrally.
    • I've rephrased for clarity and attribution to Varzos.

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton and thanks for taking the time for such a detailed review! I've incorporated/answered the first batch of suggestions. Looking forward to more! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I will resume the review shortly. As a matter of procedure, I would prefer to strike my own comments, after I've had the chance to look at your responses. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
As you prefer, I've removed them :). Constantine ✍ 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
There's a couple of points from the above still needing attention, in particular the non-subdivision of this very long section. Reading on now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to FAC coords: Brian is happy as far as his review went. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "he aspired not only to expand his state against Thessalonica": to me "expand his state against" is not very natural phrasing. How about "acquire more territory from"?
    • I've rephrased this.
  • A map would be useful earlier in the article than the current one, since many readers will be unfamiliar with these names.
  • I think File:Epiro 1205-1230.svg needs to be translated into English to be acceptable on an en-wiki FA.
    • For both of the above, I've begun translating the map and making various corrections/additions using the sources present in this article.
  • "The election was uncanonical and thereby of questionable legitimacy": suggest "therefore" or "hence" rather than "thereby", which tends to imply agency rather than just consequence.
    • Fixed
  • "relations between Theodore and Serbia remained cordial": why "Theodore and Serbia" rather than "Theodore and Stefan" or "Epirus and Serbia"?
    • It reflects more the fact that Theodore had good relations with both Stefan II Nemanjić and his successor Radoslav, but I see your point. I've rephrased it, to follow more closely the biographical POV of Theodore, especially since good relations with Serbia were an important pillar of his foreign policy.
      You have "Despite the quarrels of the churchmen, however, Theodore took care not to let them affect his cordial relations to the Serbian ruler", but Theodore's care was not really despite the quarrels -- it was because of the quarrels, if anything. How about: "Theodore took care not to let the quarrels of the churchmen affect his cordial relations with the Serbian ruler"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
      • True. Rephrased accordingly. Thanks for the suggestion. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Western sources claim that he offered to recognize...": Can we substitute a name for "he"? I'm pretty sure this is Colonna, but the context is complicated and it would help the reader.
  • I'm unclear on the discussion of the difference between Philip Van Tricht's views on the conflict between Theodore and Peter II, and those of other historians. As far as I can see Van Tricht's views relate only to Peter's motivations, not to the course of events. What is this contrasted with? I don't think the earlier discussion explicitly says that Theodore never recognized the suzerainty of the Latin Empire. It sounds like that must be the difference, but I think it could be clearer.
    • Hmm, the issue here is interpreting the political context of Peter's landing. If Theodore was still a Latin vassal, even if in name only, then Peter's landing in Albania, and his readiness to trust Theodore, make much more sense. Theodore also, unlike his brother, had not yet openly confronted the Latins, as the territory in Macedonia he expanded into was held by local (mostly Bulgarian) rulers. Most writers consider that Theodore had a clear anti-Latin policy from the outset, and view all his actions from the lens of his eventual capture of Thessalonica and drive for Constantinople. While, as with any ambitious Greek ruler of the time, these were certainly things he aimed at eventually, a continued Latin vassalage leaves open the possibility that he acted opportunistically only after Peter was considerate enough to present himself on a platter. I'll try to make this clearer.
      • I've split this up, and added the issue of allegiance to the Latin Empire to the brief summary of Michael I's anti-Latin campaigns, and I've expanded on Theodore's motivations behind his clash with Peter based on Van Tricht. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
        That's much clearer, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the "Ruler of Epirus" section needs to be either split or given subsection headings; it's very long for a single section.
    • I've divided it into a section detailing his relations with Serbia and Nicaea, and his wars with the Latins leading to the fall of Thessalonica.
  • "There she quickly appreciated the wealth and strength of the Principality of Achaea": suggest "quickly came to appreciate" as slightly more natural phrasing.
    • Fixed
  • "the hope to be able to assist": suggest "the hope that he might assist" or "that he might be able to assist".
    • Fixed.
  • The discussion of the timing of Theodore's coronation gives the opinions of the various scholars in the past tense. I'd suggest switching to the present tense, which is more usual, and is consistent with the discussion of the conflict with Peter II, where John Van Antwerp Fine and Philip Van Tricht are cited in the present tense.
    • Done.
  • "titelature": I think this should be "titulature" but I hesitate to change it without checking in case there is some shade of meaning I'm unaware of.
    • No, it is an error. Fixed.
  • "to limit the blame on Chomatianos": I think this should be "to", not "on", if I understand the sense correctly.
    • Indeed. Fixed.
  • "the presumption of Chomatianos to usurp the patriarchal privilege": suggest either "the presumption of Chomatianos in usurping the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos presuming to usurp the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos' presumption in usurping the patriarchal privilege".
  • "i.e. for Theodore the right to appoint bishops": suggest "i.e. the right for Theodore to appoint bishops".
  • "Nevertheless, for reasons that are unknown": why "nevertheless"?
    • You're right, it is superfluous. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Manuel soon lost Epirus to Michael I's bastard son Michael II. Returning from exile, Michael quickly succeeded, apparently with the support of the local population, in taking over control of Epirus." These two sentences say almost the same thing. Can they be combined?
  • "According to a recently discovered letter": better to give the date of discovery in the text, I think. "Recently" won't always mean the same thing.
    • Good point, but Fine does not give a date. I've removed this altogether, given that Fine's book is itself not that "recent" any more. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. These are all pretty minor issues. I will do another read through once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie and thanks for the review! I'll go over it today and over the weekend. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie! I've finally found some time to work through the rest of your comments. I'll do the map over the rest of the weekend as well. Best, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I've struck everything except the points about the map. I'll read through again to see if I can spot anything else. I expect to support once you've fixed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Second read-through:

  • "Manuel was unable to prevent the loss of Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became, nor the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control": I don't think "nor" works by itself here, because the previous negative is hidden in "unable" and the syntactic parallelism is too weak. How about: "Manuel lost Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became; and was also unable to prevent the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control"?
  • You have "disquieted" twice in a short span in the paragraph about Alexius Slav.

-- Once these two minor points are fixed, and the maps are addressed, I am sure I will be supporting promotion. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

New map added and both of the above points fixed. A sincere thank you for a very detailed review, and for your suggestions. Constantine ✍ 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. An outstanding article. Note to the coords: I have not reviewed sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good. Agree with Mike's points above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

'' the rulers of Epirus would continue to challenge the revived empire "for what they believed to be their own right to the throne" - I think this can be rewritten so it doesn't have quote marks and uses words more distant from source
Hi Cas Liber! I've rewritten this. Anything else? Going beyond prose issues, my worry is always whether the article is accessible and understandable by the average reader, who is probably bombarded with unknown names and concepts... Constantine ✍ 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was waiting until Mike Christie had finished above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support nothing else to add Mike's suggestions tweaked the prose nicely and nothing else jumps out at me prose-wise...and I suspect it's comprehensive. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Victoriaearle[edit]

Looks interesting. Working my way through - it's a long one.

Lead
  • "The scion of a distinguished Byzantine aristocratic family related to the imperial Komnenos, Doukas, and Angelos dynasties, Theodore's life is unknown before the conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204." Too much going on in this sentence. Perhaps split in some way, telling us that he's the scion of a distinguished family, but the details of his early life are unknown. "Theodore's life is unknown" is awkward as written. Also, with the links there's a sea-of-blue.
    • I've broken the two sentences up and rephrased it a bit. I can't do anything about the "sea of blue" in this case, nor do I consider it a valid objection here, as there are commas etc. separating the links. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nicaean emperor Theodore I Laskaris > another sea of blue
  • Second para: second and third sentence both start with "After ... " > try varying
  • "In the meantime, he was succeeded by his brother Manuel. Manuel quickly lost Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became; and was also unable to prevent the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control. " > I can get through this sentence but there's a lot stuffed into it. Suggest trying to split.
Early life
  • "According to a letter of the Metropolitan of Corfu, George Bardanes, an apologist for Theodore, he provided valuable services to Laskaris. Bardanes writes that he "took many dangers for his sake and wrested many fortresses from the enemies and subdued them to Laskaris' rule", distinguishing himself through his valour and receiving many rewards from the Nicaean ruler.[8]" > difficult to parse. Can this be simplified and perhaps put Theodore's accomplishments in a sentence and then have another sentence about the chronicler, perhaps with an explanation of which Theodore he's an apologist for, and then the quote?
    • I've restructured this, I think it reads better now. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think it's better too. Victoria (tk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Around 1210, Theodore joined his half-brother Michael I Komnenos Doukas in Epirus" >> I've rewritten this a little to try to simplify but it's ok to revert if you don't like it. I'd suggest a new paragraph here.
  • "The reason was that Michael's sole surviving son, the future Michael II Komnenos Doukas, was underage and illegitimate, while his other brothers were considered to lack the ability to rule." > a little awkward. Do the brothers refer to Theodore's brothers or to the underage illegitimate son? Maybe try to tighten so it reads something like, "Michael's only son was underage and illegitimate ..." and then straighten it out from there.
  • Suggest separating the info at the bottom of the second para, about the scholarly debate, re which Theodore is which, into its own paragraph.
    • Regarding all three of the above, I've rewritten and restructured this a bit, mostly to allow the move to Epirus to stand alone as a separate paragraph, and moved the discussion about a possible role in the Peloponnese to the "Nicaean period", as this is where it belongs chronologically and context-wise. The "brothers" obviously refers to Michael's and Theodore's brothers, since Michael II was the only son. I've clarified this again, though.
Relations with Serbia
  • "The marriage fell through due to the refusal of the Archbishop of Ohrid, Demetrios Chomatianos, to sanction it, as Theodora was closely related to the bridegroom through his mother, Eudokia Angelina, a daughter of Alexios III Angelos." > another sentence that's hard to parse because of its length and because it contains a lot of information. I'd suggest leading with the Archbishop, i.,e "The Archbishop of Ohrid, Demetrios Chomatianos, refused to sanction the marriage on the grounds of .... " and take it from there. I believe there's a term (and probably a link) for the degree of separation required for such marriages?
  • Second paragraph begins with a pronoun, but should use the subject's name - particularly in an article like this, so stuffed with names.
  • "the capture of Ohrid, seat of the eponymous archbishopric, was particularly important for the standing of the Epirote state and Theodore's aspirations." Why? Also, perhaps "eponymous" isn't necessary (certainly it doesn't mean anything to me, but it might to a subject specialist)
    • The Archbishop of Ohrid is mentioned one paragraph above. The see was the most senior see of the Byzantine Balkans outside Constantinople, and enjoyed an immense prestige, which in the hands of Chomatianos was used to bolster Theodore's claims of independence from Nicaea and the exiled Patriarch of Constantinople based there. Explaining why Ohrid was prestigious is beyond the scope of this article, but the role it played through Chomatianos is, I think, amply demonstrated in the rest of the article. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. Victoria (tk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I really like this article because it's fascinating. But it is difficult to read and I'd like to see some more work done to trim the prose. Also it would be better if the sections weren't quite so long. I'll try to get back to it; am on the fence at the moment. I've made a few minor edits; please feel free to revert. Victoria (tk) 01:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello Victoria and thank you for taking the time for this. I like thorough reviews, and as indicated above, I am always worried about the readability of my articles, especially given the relative obscurity of the subject matter at hand. I've tried to fix/address the issues you have raised so far. Take your time for the rest and thanks again. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Constantine, I'm working my way through and will post as I go along. Generally I think the prose needs some tightening to improve the flow and readability. I went through a few paragraphs and hacked out some words, diff is here, but because I'm not familiar enough with the topic I'm worried I'll hack out something that's important, so it's probably best for you to tackle. I suggest trying to minimize words such as "however", "indeed", and others like that and generally anything that's not absolutely necessary. I also think the article can benefit from splitting the long-ish paragraphs throughout - I've made a few suggestions below. At this point I'm leaning support but would like to read through to the end.
Expansion against the Latin states of Greece
  • First para in this section could be split, maybe a new para with “After a few days, Theodore …”; and another with the various interpretations of what actually happened there, i.e, para break with “Akropolites, the chronicler …. “.
  • Maybe make a separate para for the female regents and Yolanda.
  • Fourth para in the section can also benefit from splitting
Emperor of Thessalonica
  • “According to Byzantine custom, the coronation of an emperor could only take place in Constantinople and be performed by the Patriarch, but Constantinople was still in Latin hands and the Patriarch (now Germanus II, 1223–40) resided in Nicaea; Theodore thus turned to the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, Constantine Mesopotamites, whom he had just restored to his see after removing the Latin prelate.” >> too much info I think and can benefit from a split
  • Fourth para, beginning with “John Vatatzes initially reacted … “ could benefit from a para break, maybe at the point about the synod, “In 1227 … “ Victoria (tk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Last batch:

Klotkotnitsa
  • “Contemporary and later historians like Akropolites denounced this as a sign of Theodore's duplicity and treachery, but a more likely suggestion is that Theodore, hitherto undefeated in battle, desired to check Bulgarian power and avoid the possibility of the Bulgarians striking in his rear while he was engaged in besieging Constantinople.” > Split after “treachery”, start new sentence as “A more likely suggestion … “
  • ”The throne in Thessalonica was now occupied by Theodore's brother Manuel” > Theodore’s brother Manuel occupied the throne in Thessalonica” or something like that, so as to have Manuel the subject of the sentence instead of the throne.
  • Tsar or tsar? Uppercase or lowercase. It occurs in both forms in this section
Recovery of Thessalonica
  • I think it would be helpful to have date for when he was freed. The capture and seven years occurs in the previous section, so reminding the reader here of the date isn’t a bad idea
  • ”Before the spectre of civil war,” > “At the possibility of civil war” (?) or something like that. It’s another sentence with a lot of information but I have no suggestions for fixing it.

That's all from me. I apologize Constantine for the delay. To be honest, I forgot to paste these in. I hadn't read the earlier part of the review, so I don't think these comments should make much of a difference. Essentially, for a lay reader the prose is a little difficult to get through, but the article is really interesting and obviously very well researched. Victoria (tk) 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)
Shortcuts:

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Exoplanet[edit]

Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[44] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat (film)[edit]

Notified: Secret Saturdays, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Comics

This is a 2007 promotion that is the work of a banned editor (Sugar Bear) and has not really been maintained since that editor's departure. Specifically:

  • 1a) The article contains poor writing ("As Krantz began to prepare the paperwork, preparation began on a pitch presentation...") and writing of an improper tone ("He decides to ditch his bore of a life"), and requires copyediting once the content issues are resolved.
  • 1b, possibly 4) The plot section has been altered heavily since the promoted version, and I'm no longer sure it accurately describes the plot of the film. It needs to be compared with the old version and with the film itself.
  • 1c) The Reception section is not well-researched and likely does not represent the literature out there on the subject. The Critical reception subheading has had a maintenance tag since November 2014.
  • There are uncited passages (see last para of Rating).

Since the principal editor of the page is banned, I'm hoping someone else who is familiar with the film can help get it back to standard. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, you're hot on animation and all it covers: is this one you can cover? - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a peek, though I have to admit I haven't watched the movie all the way through—I love Crumb's comics, but the movie bored me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The prose needs a lot of work, and I'm surprised at the lack of background—we learn virtually nothing about Robert Crumb, the underground comix movement, the Fritz comics (some of Crumb's most prominent work), nor do we learn anything about who Bakshi was or where he was coming from. It mentions how Crumb "later drew a comic in which the Fritz character was killed off", but not that the strip appeared immediately after the film came out in direct response to the film (the strip is called "Fritz the Cat—Superstar" and satires his rising fame). Fails on comprehensivenss. I'll see if I can motivate myself to fix some of this, but I'm afraid a lot of research will have to be done to determine just how comprehensive (or not) it is. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The closer I look, the more work this article seems to need. A lot of the text I can't even understand. Example:
  • "Bakshi says that he "started to get giddy" when he "suddenly was able to get a pig that was a cop, and this particular other pig was Jewish, and I thought, 'Oh my God—a Jewish pig?' These were major steps forward ..."
This line was gibberish to me—why is he getting "giddy" over a Jewish pig? Is he a bigot? Is this some bizarre countercultural humour? Click through to the Bakshi article and find out he's Jewish—"Aha!" I think. Then I read it again and I'm still in the dark.
I'll still take a whack at this thing, but I'm not sure I've got the motivation to bring it up to standard within whatever timeframe there may be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm never sure of the timeframe, but I don't think that there is ever any rush (within reason), as long as there is progress toward improvement. Nikkimaria, what's the normal process with FAR - it's not an area I'm familiar with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair summary - if you need time to work you'll have it, within reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden[edit]

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

This article is scheduled to be featured on the main page on 30 June, but it's a complete mess. The introduction is five paragraphs long and comprises a mix of tourist guide-style material and an extended paraphrase of a single source detailing the history of the area; the history section, which should and sometimes does have that information, is poor; the geography and landmarks sections are completely tangled, again frequently containing material that should be classed as history; the rest of the article is a hodgepodge of trivia and unnecessary detail: the stage of the Royal Opera House is roughly 15 metres square, the collection of the Transport Museum had previously been held at Syon Park and Clapham, The Harp has been owned by the landlady since 2010. Et cetera, et cetera. The writing is of poor quality throughout, largely as a result of how disorganised the article is. Here's an example: Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007, due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion. The reader of this article, once they get their breath back after trying to read that in one go, will recall that the 300 yard factlet had already been presented to them irrelevantly in the introduction. It's not worth trying to scrub through this piece and spot and fix the issues in time for it to be featured again; this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting before it goes anywhere near the main page.  — Scott • talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better.  — Scott • talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Oops. Done.  — Scott • talk 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers.  — Scott • talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Disruptive"? That's Wikipedia Discussion Bingo! I'm out of here. Would say good luck, but luck has got absolutely nothing to do with where you're headed.  — Scott • talk 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.
It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.
Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some good points. I will take down the updating tag, as I don't think there is that much work to be done to justify the banner. And I will also look into those eating establishments you mention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To add to this, the article has 26 kb of readable prose as of this revision, so there is scope to add material, if we take 50 kb prose as a limit to article size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm too busy currently to give this much attention. Perhaps it can be postponed a month or two. Andrew D. (talk)
  • Comment The process is that "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fighting in ice hockey[edit]

Notified: Mus Musculus, WikiProject Ice Hockey

I am nominating this featured article for review because I don't think this article meet the criteria anymore, like User:DrKiernan point out at the talk page more than 18 months ago, major source problems still not addressed, and there's several paragraphs with no footnotes at all, two [citation needed] didn't get any attention. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – I'll have a look at the article over the weekend, with the aim of improving it. At a minimum, I'll make sure that the blacklisted sources disappear for good. Although I don't remember doing so, I took the Hockeyfights link out of the References section last year, but I missed the fact that the two tables in the body use it. Replacing them will be my highest priority, along with adding references. It looks like the other two sources mentioned on the talk page have already been removed from the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh[edit]

Notified: YellowMonkey, WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this featured article for review because it now falls some way short of FA standards. It passed FAC (review here in 2007 and came through a FAR in 2008. We are struggling on criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d as this article has not really been kept up to date since around 2008. I think we're also in trouble with 2b and 3c. Here is the summary I gave on the talk page at the beginning of May, but these are samples only.

  • There are numerous unsourced statements. This is a BLP which makes this a major problem.
  • There are prose issues throughout, and I'm not sure this would pass FAC today; lots of run-on sentences and repetitive structures. Someone should look closely at this.
  • The lead basically stops in 2008 and has nothing for the last eight years
  • "Harbhajan Singh married his longtime girlfriend, actress Geeta Basra, on 29 October 2015 in Jalandhar." is listed in "Early Life"
  • There is hardly anything about his career between 2011 and 2015
  • The structure of the article is fairly impenetrable.
  • The later text is basically prose line.
  • Quite a lot of fancruft throughout.

These are the changes since the article was last at FAR in 2008. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is recoverable as the nominator and lead contributor, YellowMonkey, is long gone and there is a huge amount of work to do. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: The readable prose size for this article is 74 kB, which is way WP:TOOBIG. The version which passed FA was only 38 kB, which means the current article is double the size of the original one. The article is an absolute disaster, for reasons outlined above, all of which I agree with. It should be cut by at least a third to make it anywhere near acceptable. Recommend delisting. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Military history

The overcrowd of images out of context and the unsourced content are the most striking, of the content, there's almost nothing of politics and governments of the Monarch, instead there's a timeline of the UK in the period. Just my 2 cents. Frenditor (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The initial promoter has long since retired - I am not familair with the subject - can you be more specific in political material that might be missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with this characterization of the article. There are three sections without images; most sections have one or two images, with only one section (the longest) with three images and one section (on Arms) containing a gallery of five. The only part of the article where text is between images (on anything other than a massive screen) is the first section "Early life", where the first image is opposite the tail end of the infobox. But because the infobox and the images in the first section are staggered, the 30% of readers that use mobile devices should not see text squeezed between two images facing each other. The images are in context: matched by date or subject matter to the appropriate section.
The "unsourced" material was discussed at the previous review, where I chose not to source it because they are general statements (such as "The Second Coalition, which included Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire, was defeated in 1800") that can be found in any history of the period.
As evidenced by section titles such as "Constitutional struggle" and "William Pitt", as well as the content of those sections and others, George's involvement in politics and government are covered. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor who started this was blocked as a sock. --Rschen7754 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, I think it should either be deleted as WP:CSD#G5 or archived. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to the delegates as to whether they want it archived or deleted. --Rschen7754 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, given that it's here, I can see a few things that need attending. There are some uncited sentences that I will tag, and "kaleidoscope of changing views" in the lead that should be easy to rephrase and dequote. Also the Legacy section has 3 paras that start, "George III..." If these get done I think I am happy to close. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the level of images, and I suppose given the number of his children we are stuck with the long infobox and awful template. Close, ideally after fixing Cas' points. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Maus[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is shit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Curly Turkey - usually I would ask you to clarify which of the FA criteria you feel the article doesn't meet, but given the discussion on the talk page I'm guessing you don't actually believe that. We can certainly run an FAR to deal with Poeticbent's concerns one way or the other, but both of you please keep in mind that FAR is not dispute resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't care what happens to the article. Eveyone who comes across it has some beef with it, and I'm sick of dealing with it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think Poeticbent has some valid points but if both he and Curly Turkey are too disgusted at this point to engage in this process, I don't see a whole lot of progress being possible on this FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Awww, was just about to read the comic for the first time... If I get it done before this closes, I might have something to say. But I'm not sure what the issues are. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist per unsolved problems. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum in angry exchanges, I find it useful to bring back the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria at this point. The article is not well-researched, not neutral, and not stable. It is a target of ongoing edit wars with enraged participants hiding behind IP addresses in order to stay safe. I do not participate in edit wars by my own volition therefore there's no edit wars from me, which is but an illusion; please read Talk:Maus#FAR for more. The article goes into unnecessary detail where it does not matter, however, it lacks historical context of the Sosnowiec Ghetto in occupied Poland, with the sections on the Maus political impact abroad and surrounding controversy decidedly substandard, as I have already said both at the article talk page and on my own talk page as well. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Neither you or anyone else has to my knowledge pointed out any actual, actionable problems with the article. That would require some more substance than the subjetive critique you have advanced at the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poeticbent: We actually don't declare "delist" or "keep" at this stage. This is for delineating and attempting to fix problems. I've semi-protected the article for three months and will consider indefinite semi, because I don't see any useful contributions at all coming from drive-by anonymous editors. As for your other concerns, there is a question of whether we have any hope of addressing them without the involvement of the primary editors. If not, might as well fast track to FARC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The article obviously should be delisted (and shame on the reviewers for letting this garbage out of the bin), but not for Poeticbent's rationale. Reviewers should be very careful not to take Poeticbent's comments at face value:
There's been a lot of ciriticism of the article, so let's ping a whack of these people: @Cordless Larry, Bus stop, Softlavender, Sıgehelmus, NebY, Only in death does duty end, Volunteer Marek, and Lost in space:. I'm sure I missed someone. Feel free to ping them—we can't let this pile of shit continue to fester with that gold star at the top of it.
Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Last time I looked at it was like four years ago when it was up for GA and I don't recall having any major issues with it. In fact I vaguely remember thinking it was pretty good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
As I explained on the article's talk page, I stopped watching it because of the tone of responses I got when I tried, on request, to provide some outside input into a debate. I don't get the feeling that that tone has changed, so I won't be contributing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the drama police ought to close this RFAR, and that noone should reopen it untill some specific actionable complaints preferably supported by reliable references showing how the article misrepresents the literature about the graphic novel.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Threatening to use the FAR process to push an edit is disruptive. maclean (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • My final comment. I would like to take User:Laser brain up on his suggestion (from above) and fast track this entry to FARC, because there's no hope for addressing my concerns here. I do not understand why there's so much aggression in some of the responses from above. – Reverting my single edit with citation from reliable third-party book of Holocaust history (with one-click) was, and still is, the canary in the coal mine for me. The whole affair makes me remember what happened when we suddenly realized that the article about the SS was controlled and heavily edited by a genuine i.e. self-identified fascist. (It has been fixed though.)
Our article about Maus is not balanced, and lack the encyclopaedic tone. It is written in a childlike manner (hallmark of all fan-pages), thus ignoring the criticism by published authors who point out that the representation of human beings through anthropomorphic animals: Jews as mice, German gentiles as blockhead cats, Polish gentiles as pigs ("unclean" by virtue, the only ones straight from Goebbels), Gypsies as Gypsy moths, Swedish people as reindeer and the British as fish; makes a connection between cultural identities of these nations and the metaphoric non-human animals in the minds of those who don't like them. It is a gimmick – as the critics point out – making fun of biological determinism by turning racial conflicts into natural predator/prey relationships (none of it is stressed in this article enough). Our Maus article denies the stereotypic connotations of Spiegelman's technique, but also turns that technique upside down. It fails to explain that the author is playing directly into the racist visions of Adolf Hitler. (Robert Harvey presses this point in Art of the Comic Book) The story's moral underpinnings are troubling. In fact, this is why I did not participate in the (quote-unquote) quality drive of this entry before now, even though I was aware of it much earlier. I stopped watching it similar to Cordless Larry, but for my own reasons. Things changed when I realized that Maus is being promoted in the factual Holocaust history articles from occupied Poland. I attempted to help bring some sense to it, and was reverted by "the owner" at an instance. That is why I'm here. For the record, I am not threatening anyone by informing them about my intentions in the follow up to their actions.
Some comic book critics question the use of the animal metaphor in relation to Holocaust history (Der Stürmer comes to mind immediately). Indeed, some have roundly criticized Spiegelman's use of the device as 'glib and irresponsible', although none of it is in our article. Hillel Halkin, reviewing Maus for Commentary in 1992 wrote: 'The Holocaust was a crime committed by humans against human, not – as Nazi theory held – by one biological species against another. To draw people as animals ... is doubtly dehumanizing, once by virtue of the symbolism and once by virtue of graphic limitations.' Other commentators insisted that fidelity to truth is essential to writing about the Holocaust. – The Sosnowiec Ghetto was destroyed during the courageous uprising in which all fighters perished. Stories of attempted rescue abound. And yet, there were also people like Moshe Merin in there, who aided the Nazis in the hunt for the leaders of the aforementioned groups. We know little to nothing from reliable third-party sources about people in this book. The lack of true historical background to Sosnowiec/Będzin Ghettos trivializes the matter. The Holocaust narrators are bound by an ethical imperative to represent details as accurately as possible according Sara Horowitz (Voicing the Void) and Wikipedia is no different I believe. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. Charles Hatfield, Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature ISBN 1604735872
  2. Judith B. Kerman, The Fantastic in Holocaust Literature and Film: Critical Perspectives ISBN 0786458747
  • I do not understand why there's so much aggression—you can only be so dense. The aggression comes entirely in response to the bizarre, unprovoked threats and aggreession you've displayed ever since I offered to help you un-botch your ridiculous edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • none of it is in our article—holy shit! so you just up and admit you haven't read the article then? One of these critics even gets his photo in the article, and the Hillel Halkin and R. C. Harvey quotes you quote are in the fucking article! Just how blind are your to your own bias? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I can't say that I'm an expert on graphic novels or the horrors of the Holocaust, but I decided to check the source behind the disputed "little stereotyping" vs. "much stereotyping" sentence. Fortunately, the relevant page was available to me on Google Books. After reading it, I must admit to some confusion. It may be that the content is completely beyond my pay grade as an editor (it probably is in fairness), but I don't see where proof behind the "much" change is. Perhaps it's at the top of the page, where "one-dimensional animal caricatures and 'bestial' stereotypes" are mentioned, but the context is on the prior page, which I don't have access to. Therefore, I can't be sure one way or the other. Later on the page, I see discussion of how stereotypes are being "mitigage(d)", and how "Spiegelman may do much to reverse a negative stereotype" in one instance. That doesn't match up well with the edit; was there another source that was used for this information? If so, the source should have been swapped when the edit was made. While I have no wish to trivialize Nazi horrors, we do need sources that verify content changes. Then again, I might be missing it because I'm not as familiar with interpreting academic literature as some; maybe it's right under my nose, so to speak. I don't have any further opinion on the article, as I just don't know enough about the subject matter. I do hope, though, that we can get on without calling people's work "childlike" and basically calling people fanboys; that won't lead to the kind of collaboration this site thrives on. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to have a PhD to read exactly what is being said and than substitute words which are synonymous to get to the bottom of things. The "owner" of this article admitted on my talk page to have written that sentence himself by saying (quote): "I may have misinterpreted the source..." Here is what he wrote: "The Germans are depicted with little difference between them, but there is great variety and little stereotyping among the Poles and Jews who dominate the story." Little stereotyping implies almost no stereotyping. Alas, depicting Poles as pigs and Jews as mice isn't stereotyping, because Poles are like pigs, and Jews are like mice. Look at the faces of those "pigs". There's "great variety" between them (sure), each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face. The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations. You don't have to buy it though. Poeticbent talk 05:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Good God, but aren't you fantastically dishonest?—
  • It's telling how you've edited my comment down from "I may have misinterpreted the source or gotten the wrong page", where I alsgo gave the likely pages (and removed the text until I could be sure). Where I may have made a mistake (but probably didn't), you introduced a clear, deliberate, and disgustingly sneaky distortion of the text to push your POV with the change from "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping".
  • The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations—interesting (and totally dishonest) interpretation of my comment on your talk page, which really couldn't have been more congenial. I offered to find a way to work these matters into the text, and you responded by threatening to sic the admins on me. Supposedly I'm "aggressive", while Poeticbent has accused me of racism and OWNership and threatened me repeatedly.
  • Poeticbent still hasn't bothered to address his bizarre accusations that there is nothing in the article critical about Spiegelman's use of pigs, when there are in fact several such critical voices, include two exact quotes that he accuses the article of lacking. Why do you refuse to address this, Poeticbent? Is it because you haven't actually read the article?
  • I see some bizarre behaviour from Poeticbent elsewhere. He had the Treblinka extermination camp article promoted to GA, then after failing to have it promted to FA, had it brought back to FA by one of the supporters of the FA1, and then himself supported the FA2.
  • Once again, I urge anyone who feels like tackling this mess to first ttake a peek at "Contemporary Debates on the Holocaust in Poland The Reception of Art Spiegelman’s ‘Graphic Novel’ Maus" by Tomasz Łysak, an essay in a RS about Polish reaction to Maus that appears to have been written specifically about Poeticbent. And be sure not to ignore Poeticbent's "each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face", which says reams and reams about this editor's psychology.
Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A week has gone by without a single comment from the broader community. What's happening, dear colleagues worldwide? Are you too afraid to dip your finger in this steaming pile of propaganda? Timothy Snyder, Housum professor of history at Yale University and author of seminal Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin wrote in the New York Times Sunday Book Review on June 22, 2012. – And ... no, you will not find his name in the reference section of this star decorated hate speech. But you can read his review online. I'm posting here a few selected samples from a very long essay, but with a sense of satisfaction, because the likelihood of "the article owner" deleting it from here is much smaller, when compared to the complete denial of my right to contribute to "his own article" in mainspace.

In a nutshell, the case against MAUS is that, despite its veneer of sophistication, the book is a rather primitive expression of the author’s prejudices in choosing to portray the Poles as a nation of swine. Furthermore, its portrayal of Poles contains serious misrepresentations regarding their alleged role in the Holocaust. This is contemptible, and unacceptable by Canadian standards.

Depicting Poles as disgusting and brutal animals is eerily reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda newspaper, Der Stürmer. Significantly, this point is usually omitted by reviewers of MAUS, even though the image of fat, fascist pigs permeates MAUS and is all too glaring to overlook. The fact that MAUS employs the same imagery of the Poles as found in Nazi propaganda, where Poles were often referred to as “pigs,” could perhaps be explained, provided teachers and teaching materials addressed this matter squarely. The fact is they almost never do.

Spiegelman does not humanize the Polish “pigs.” He humanizes only his Jewish mice characters, while depicting his Polish pigs essentially as racist stereotypes. By focusing on negative characters like the camp kapos, Spiegelman implies that the Poles, who were also victims of the Nazi regime, collaborated with their fascist enemies. Unfortunately, these crude stereotypes are, for the most part, simply perverse history and would be unacceptable in any other context. — Timothy Snyder, 3. Why is the depiction of Poles in MAUS objectionable from a historical perspective?

(Google cache) Poeticbent talk 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The viewpoint of Snyder can be added to the article. The fact that it is not currently included is not a major problem, and certainly not a cause for delisting. You need to start taking a positive and collaborative attitude here, for example by suggesting actual changes using the normal editing mechanisms when one wants to include content and perspectives to the article. Your belligerent postures here do not help you in the least. Especially not when several of your claims about the article turns out to be untrue. This is simply a case where you want to fit the article closer to your personal point of view. The correct way to argue that is to use arguments to convince others that it is necessary, not to abuse editorial processes and make enemies out of the people who have worked in good faith to create a featured article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Poeticbent: While I do take you seriously, I have little desire to engage with agenda-driven editors such as yourself because you are incapable of editing from a neutral and dispassionate stance. I doubt you can claim with a straight face that you don't have an agenda and POV here. This is at odds with Wikipedia's mission. I agree with Maunus that Snyder can be added in an appropriate fashion. This FAR should be closed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record. The article was promoted to a featured article status at 16:59, 17 January 2013 based on support votes from both, User:Maunus and User:Laser brain, neither of whom edited the article in the process. And please, spare me the personal attacks. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I did not support promotion. I can see others' points above when they grow frustrated with your inaccurate or dishonest representations of facts. If you see my calling out your agenda as a personal attack, so be it. But I'm still calling it out. I don't blame Curly Turkey for getting exasperated with you, because I'm already almost there just from these minimal dealings. --Laser brain (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - as a completely uninvolved editor, who hasn't even read the article, the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling. It all seems to boil down to: one editor wants some more critical views added to the text that deals with animal analogues. This editor needs to propose some fitting text that can be added (in line with WP:due weight) and be much more specific. It will take much less time than writing long tirades and endless discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
What would you like me to do, User:FunkMonk, "propose some fitting text" to whom?! – The people who refuse to edit on my behalf (like User:Curly Turkey), or those who abuse me verbally on a par, but without ever editing the article? You say, "the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling", but is there an affable and cordial way of talking about racism? MAUS is a Holocaust industry enterprise with a lot of money at stake. Please read Snyder comments on U.S. distribution practices (quote): "MAUS has been taught widely in U.S. high schools, and even elementary schools, as part of the literature curriculum for many years." This sort of thing usually translates into landslide resource revenues. The book is being promoted as non-fiction. Snyder writes: "MAUS clearly cannot be treated as an accurate historical record, although it is passed off as such. The perspective of the protagonist is too narrow and flawed. The voice of the author and narrator, rather than exposing the protagonist’s biases and misrepresentations of the historical record, reinforces them" (end of quote). Look what happened to Norman Finkelstein as soon as he began to expose the workings of similar phenomenons. His tenure at DePaul was denied. – However, I would love to see MAUS article developed like all other Wikipedia articles about highly controversial subjects (including Finkelstein article itself), but it will never happen for as long as this one entry is being walled off from joint editing through a preposterous Feature Article sticker awarded by a good faith mistake. That's why I'm here. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
And the obvious way to propose changes would be to make a very precise, point by point list of suggested changes on the talk page or here, so uninvolved editors can get an overview and judge for themselves. What you've done now is very counter-productive to your own cause, huge walls of rambling text (referring to older talk-page discussions, therefore hard to follow) with little specific suggestions on how to improve the article. It makes it extremely hard to follow what it is you actually want to achieve. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You're correct, of course, FunkMonk. I shouldn't let my irritation show, and I should stick to the content. What you point out is exactly why we're spinning our wheels here. We all presumably want to see the article improved if it's deficient, but we've now veered completely off-topic and have had a large paragraph about how Maus is making money by being taught in schools. It's thus far been impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Poeticbent's commentary. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Bureaucratic creep. Another two weeks have gone by. Everybody talk but nobody listen. I have explained in great detail what is wrong with this article using comprehensive prose. My comprehensive prose is straightforward and clear. It is not a tirade. Suggested WP:BULLETS are not workable, because the coverage of MAUS is flawed to its core and, for as long as Curly Turkey's 'ownership' of this entry is protected by the FA sticker, all WP:RS voices of reason (which I quote, including comments by professional historians such as Snyder, Grobman, and McDonough) will be reverted, and nothing will be improved. I would like to have this article returned to standard editing (so it can be improved) and therefore ask the coordinators at FAR, User:Nikkimaria and User:Casliber, to please place my review at featured article removal candidates. In my substantive comments (from above) and at the article talk page I have raised complex issues about factual accuracy and neutrality. This I have done to the best of my abilities, and critics may say what they like. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 16:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
FAs are subject to standard editing just as all other articles. You just need to get consensus for your suggested changes, which you have failed to do (partly because you havent proposed any concrete changes).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"I don't like it", is not an argument. The reason you have received no comments is because you refuse the make a concise list of suggestions (which is what we have all been waiting for during these two weeks). It is very simple. "Flawed to its core", allegations of "bureaucratic creep", and other over-dramatic BS means little to nothing without readable suggestions for how to improve the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you think the article has flaws, Poeticbent, but this is a forum for article improvement, not for dispute resolution, and we're not here simply to remove the "FA sticker". As such, specific and actionable comments with reference to the FA criteria would be far more helpful in gauging next steps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

OpenBSD[edit]

Notified: Tony Sidaway, Risc64, Mindmatrix, Guy Harris, Czar, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Free software, WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Open

Review comments[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because in the ten years since the FAC and six years since the previous FA review, the article has undergone significant changes (see the article from 2006) and has fallen short of FA criteria in several areas:

1(a): Not particularly well-written, mostly bland technical writing.
1(b): Not comprehensive, very brief in several sections.
1(c): Citations are lacking in several areas, particularly sections 2-4.
2(a): Five paragraphs in lead; much of this content probably belongs in the main article but not the lead.

I have notified several users above who have contributed a fair amount to the article, as well as one user who also thought this should be brought to FAR. I also notified the projects that have this article listed as Top or High priority. The user who initially brought it to FA, as well as the user who initiated the previous FAR, are both inactive, and the article only averages one edit every 2.1 days as it was only heavily edited during the initial FAC around 2005-06. However, there should be a few users that I notified above and others in the WikiProjects who would be willing to help improve the article and possibly work to keep it as FA (although it does need a considerable amount of work).

I also have a basic peer review of the article that could improve it somewhat to start:

  • American vs. British spellings: License and licence both used in lead
  • OpenBSD Project: P should be lowercase
  • “M:tier” in quotes: not sure if this is proper
  • Component and third party sections: Too listy
  • Development, 3rd PP: Inverted quotes (double within single)

Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Gosh, this really has been battered to death since the last FAR. It's practically unrecognizable and nowhere near even GA status. Lots of unsourced text, lots of choppy sections, probably requires a complete rewrite. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  • My comments are on the article's talk page but in short, the unsourced sections are alone enough work to warrant the delisting. The prose also is a long way from brilliant. I'd be curious what it would be like to rebuild from its 2006 state as opposed to blowing it up and starting over. Good luck to anyone who takes it on I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I advocate a blanket revert to the last known good state, but that obviously wouldn't be appropriate here because of everything that's probably occurred with an active OS. It looks like Tony Sidaway updated the article quite a bit in June 2012. I'd love to hear their opinion, but it looks like they have not edited actively in recent times. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • As noted above, I did notify Tony Sidaway and a few others who had made some recent edits. Tony's last edit to this article was in July 2015, so he might still be around and provide some good comments. I think the 2006 version, and to some extent even the current one, could be used as templates for sources and content and build from there. It'll be a lot of work, but doesn't need to be from scratch. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reading through this article, it's B-class content at best, and probably closer to C-class. There exist gaps in the history section, no section or significant discussion on the features of OpenBSD, the majority of the article discusses more minor aspects (funding, security, etc.). The present content is fine although needing of a copyedit; however substantial expansion is needed to bring this article to even a GA. Esquivalience t 23:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I also noticed that there are mostly named references, with a few exceptions which were likely added more recently. There were some references added to the lead since the start of this FAR, so if there's a consensus to continue having all sources be named refs at the end of the article, we could standardize this throughout. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm still around. It looks as if this nomination has brought renewed attention to the article, resulting in attempts to improve it. That's good news. On the use of the spellings licence and license in the lede, note that these are the normal British spellings of the noun and the verb respectively according to the OED, which also lists licence as an accepted variant spelling for the verb. I no longer remember whether the article is supposed to be in any particular dialect and I have no strong opinions on which dialect the article should be written in. --TS 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice to see you Tony. I agree that User:Michael Reed has done a great job so far and the article is improving rapidly. For the license spelling, I went ahead and changed it to the American version since that was the spelling used in 35 out of 37 instances in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

FARC comments[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section included prose, coverage, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Michael Reed has done a great job of cleaning up the article. I have also made some changes, and several others have contributed occasionally. I would have to agree with another comment above, however, that the article will probably need a rewrite to be FA-quality. We can use the improved existing version and compare it with older versions to develop a structure for the article that will ensure complete coverage while also being up-to-date. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I noticed the article has had 175 edits in the past three weeks, whereas the article only had one edit every two weeks or so before. It may be well short of FA criteria, but that's a wonderful statistic! Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Enceladus[edit]

Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy
WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

comments from Graeme Bartlett
  • I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
  • One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
  • Another is related, the auroral hiss[45].
  • referencing improvements required:
    • The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.
    • Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN.
    • "Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald
    • 56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)
    • Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit.
    • "Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source.
    • "Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release
    • "'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com
    • "A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007
    • "Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date.
    • "Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Update, done with a few notes:
    • 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
    • The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.
    I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
    • There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17
    • There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
    • Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)
    • Cassini‍‍ '​‍s has a non printing character before apostrophe (due to use of {{'s}})
    • Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"
    • infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon's
    • E-ring should be E-Ring
    • We have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm3 (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).
    • Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres (It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=us
    • Using m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2
    • Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully.
    • "Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe
    • " —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)
    • I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)
  • Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.
    • Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think so, yes. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Corinne

1) In this sentence in the lead:

  • Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.

the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:

  • Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:

  • Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?

  • Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

3) The last sentence in the lead is:

  • Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.

(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?

(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.


4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:

  • Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.

I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:

  • It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."

5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?

– Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.
I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.
I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Atmosphere section

DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As we've established, it was not possible to expand the section and I think short sections should be merged into others, which is essentially what has been done here with the material positioned in the Cryovolcanism section. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. The prose is poor, using an unnecessarily repetitive and unidiomatic style that is also indicative of structural problems in the article. Because relevant material is deliberately excluded, the subject is not placed in its context rendering the topic non-comprehensive and difficult to follow without following links to other articles. Attempts to address these problems are reverted. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem there is that Saturn has a difficult-to-define number of moons. There are spherical moons, but Moons of Saturn gives 62 moons with confirmed orbits, of which 53 are named. Of course, what's a moon or not is ultimately subjective - the rings are made of zillions of "moons", and how can we define when a chunk is big enough to be a moon? Saying Enceladus is "sixth-largest" with no absolute number specified is actually an elegant solution to this problem. I have addressed the other two concerns you raised by given content for "one of the major inner" and removing "fourteenth". Do you have any other prose concerns? A2soup (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
  • Change all ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 (I only see one) using this site as per WP:ISBN
    Done. There were four (I have a little script). --Mirokado (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The instability leads me to move here. Concerns about prose, which can be difficult to balance between exactness and accessibility in these articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What "instability" do you mean? There was one recent not-quite-edit-war (both editors made varied changes that ultimately led to improvement, rather than flat reverts). Also, can you point out specifically what prose concerns you? A2soup (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@A2soup: Calling DrKay about these prose issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@DrKay, Graeme Bartlett, and Corinne: Where do things stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
All the minor issues are fixed, but my major issue still remains, which is incomplete coverage on the topic of its effect on Saturn including auroral hiss and its magnetosphere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Could we perhaps have declarations from A2soup, BatteryIncluded, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and JorisvS? Thanks. I have no comments on the prose but am not competent to comment on the comprehensiveness, which is the remaining concern. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The issues mentioned by Graeme can probably be easily fixed with some sources and text from them. No opinion on prose, my English skills are not sufficient to comment on them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The science aspect seems to be updated. I have no opinion on the prose. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Default keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no explicit delist declarations. DrKay (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=727449190"