Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2018

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2018 [1].

3 of Hearts (album)

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following my success with putting Pru and Ho Ho Ho through the FAC process, I have decided to nominate this music-related article. It is about a teen pop and country music album by American group 3 of Hearts. The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore and was marketed towards a younger audience through the group's crossover appeal. It was released on March 6, 2001, through RCA Nashville. Reviews of 3 of Hearts were mixed; some critics praised the group's vocals and image, while others criticized the songs as generic and lacking an authentic country sound.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this nomination. If anyone is interested, this is what the article looked like before I worked on it: here. I am honestly not a fan of the album or country music in general, but I found a teen pop approach to country music to be interesting and unique so I enjoyed research and writing this. Thank you in advance and have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

edit
  • I understand that it is not mandatory to have a specific number of paragraphs in the lead, but you could use three here (if at all). With the first focusing in the album and the group, the second in the marketing and the genre, and the third obviously the reception. This is just my POV though.
  • I understand what you mean, but I am not certain about it. I think that separating the first paragraph of the lead into two would make two rather short paragraphs and that would look awkward at the very beginning of an article in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though this the debut album for the band, I am not too sure about the relevance of the group's entire history in the Background section. I get most of it and how it helps weave a narrative, but it really does belong in the group's page. Although, this too is really just my POV, and you could use a second opinion here as most of the section is fairly well written and does in fact talk about the group's immediate history.
  • I understand what you mean here; I just think that it is important to include all of the information about how the group was signed to the label as this is their debut album so I would find those parts to be relevant in how the album was made. I would argue that it would make sense to this information on both the article on the debut album and the article on the group itself. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Walmart is not mentioned anywhere in the article but the lead. You might want to cross-check and then substantiate the sponsor claim in the article's body.
  • Also, the release date of the album is never directly mentioned in the relevant section. You should mention when it was released and in what formats (cassette, CD, digital download) here in prose as you do in the release history table.
  • Would the "Following the album's release, 3 of Hearts was removed from RCA due..." paragraph fit better in the Reception section considering the fact that it is the commercial reception being talked about. Also, the critical reception as a backdrop for the same would make a lot more sense than the marketing section. Again, POV.
  • I think that the information is best suited for the "Release and promotion" section given the quotes from Joe Galante and the information about the removal of the group from the record label actually deals more with the promotional tactics than with the sales. Sales seemed to be a partial reason, but I found more information on how the group's promotional campaign and their connection with radio audiences shaped the label's decision to remove them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ocean Way Nashville, never finds a mention the body or did I miss it? You could also substantiate it in the text if it is not already mentioned.
  • Although this is more of a query, but is the list format the preferred manner for arranging the personnel section? I am not familiar with music related articles as such, so forgive my ignorance here.
  • It is a very valid question so no worries; it is a pretty standard practice so someone can easily access all of the credits for the album at a glance. You can look at my previous articles on albums that passed through the FAC process both here and here to see what I mean regarding this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks great Aoba47! Fine work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk 05:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very minor: You could avoid repetiton of of in the second paragraph of the lead.
  • Again very minor: "some critics praised the group's vocals and image" - The image bit might not be as clear as one would wish (could be just me). Maybe you could say public image or media image or whatever suits it best, just to make it more specific.

I can support the article. Good luck Aoba47, have a great year! NumerounovedantTalk 06:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

edit
  • "It was released on March 6, 2001, through RCA Nashville" - I'd clarify this is a record label
  • "Arizona Rain" in the lead should have a nonbreaking space
WP:NBSP. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 of Hearts was removed from RCA." - released might be better than removed
  • The tape was composed of four tracks; cover versions of songs by Canadian singer Shania Twain and American singer Martina McBride; a gospel song, and "The Star-Spangled Banner" - should be a colon, not a semicolon
  • "Stroud, McNeil, and Wasdin had received offers from four Nashville-based record labels, including RCA Nashville. They signed their record deal with RCA Nashville shortly after their high-school graduation.[2]" - why "had"? Don't think it's necessary, just received works fine.
  • "connecting them with performers Jessica Andrews, LeAnn Rimes, and Lila McCann; and the band Marshall Dyllon, but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory".[5]" - two questions with this. First, why the three artists then a semicolon then the band? and why is the last bit about his view relevant?
  • I am not sure why; I think that the semicolons were added during a copy-edit from another user. I have changed the semicolon. I would think that his opinion on the age range for country radio audiences is important as it is a theme that appears quite often in this article. The record label tried to reach a younger audience with the group, but it failed as country radio audiences are primarily older and uninterested in the group. I could remove the last bit though as I am more than open for suggestions. Just wanted to explain my rationale for when I first put it in there. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the release of the album, 3 of Hearts' song entitled "Just Might Change Your Life" " - no need for "entitled" here
  • "the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers, which were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses.[7]" - this should be a separate sentence
  • "The instrumentals include "fiddles and the big drums that mainstream country favors".[13] " - this shouldn't be a quote
  • "before it was preponed to March 6 that year.[13]" - think you mean postponed
  • It is not really "postponed" as it was moved ahead of its scheduled release. The word "preponed" is actually the opposite of "postponed", which makes sense in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 of Hearts was the first country act Seventeen had partnered with" - reads awkwardly; rephrase so it doesn't end on "with"
  • " To further promote their music, 3 of Hearts visited radio stations, and conducted a two-hour interview with Scholastic magazine and appeared on the cover." - run-on; easily fixed by tweaking to "and appearing on the cover"
  • "Following the album's release, 3 of Hearts was removed from RCA " - again, I think the verb usually used is "released"
  • "3 of Hearts' vocals and image received praised" - typo; praise
  • "Editor Robert Pimm, writing for the American Bar Association, panned the album's content for its "bright, but shallow declarations of puppy love"." - confused why the ABA reviewed an album??
  • The ABA wrote a larger article about how record labels attempt to attract different types of audiences through their acts. I admit that I was surprised to find this source, but it is a very interesting read and shows how coverage on a certain topic can be found in surprising places. I am not sure exactly what you want me to do with this comment though. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth it to clarify, either in the text or via a footnote, that this was part of a larger article about record labels and audiences. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have added a footnote about this; I am slowly learning the value of these things and I should think of them more often, especially in these types of situations. I am happy that I double-checked the source as I accidentally credited the wrong article and writer due to the way to the information is split up in the source so I have also corrected that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is in decent shape. These are comments from a first look. ceranthor 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments so far. I am looking forward to the rest of your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Replied to two. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Made a few MOS changes, but I think this looks good. Support on the prose. ceranthor 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

edit
  • "They had each performed independently at various venues and had aspirations to pursue music as a career." — Can be rephrased as "They had each performed independently at various venues and aspired to pursue music as a career."
  • Is the name of the gospel song known anywhere?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find the name of the gospel song or the Shaina Twain and Martina McBride covers either. The only song title that I could find from their demo tape was "The Star-Spangled Banner". Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me, Aoba47. Other than that, I can provide my support on prose.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • As a general rule you give both newspaper/journal title and the publishing organisation, but in a few instances you don't (ref 1 Texas Monthly; 15 Deseret News; 18 Countryside Standard Time
  • Refs 26 and 27: despite divergence in titles, the linked sources appears to be the same.
  • They are both linked to different pages. Check them again, and check the upper left corner. Reference 26 has "Hot Country Songs" and Reference 27 has "Country Airplay" as stated in the titles for the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with 28 and 29
  • Ref 31: Title of newspaper missing (The Dallas Morning News)

Otherwise, sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moise

edit

The article is generally well-written but here are some quick initial comments from my first read-through.

  • Thank you for the kind words! I enjoy working on these more obscure articles, as I feel that no one else would really pay any attention to them or work on them this far. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed several instances where the same word is repeated in close proximity (within the same sentence or the next). Could you go through the article and see how many of these you may be able to reduce? (Here is one of several examples: "The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger audience;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format".")
  • Thank you for pointing this out; I have read through the article, and I have hopefully reduced this down at least a little. Please let me know if further reduction/revision would be beneficial/appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead and Release and promotion sections, the word "released" is used to describe their being let go from their record label. This is of course a perfectly legitimate usage, but I felt it kind of stands out because there are so many instances of the other usage of "release", i.e., release of an album or single. How would you feel about using "let go" instead of "released"?
  • That makes sense to me. I originally had the word "removed" in this context as the record label removed the group from their roster, and I highly doubt that it would was a mutual decision. I changed "removed" to "released" based on an above suggestion, and I am more than open to changing it again to "let go" (which I have already done), but my only concern is that I feel the language borders on euphemism if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to signing 3 of Hearts, Kragen said he almost retired from music after being fired by American singer-songwriter Kenny Rogers." Did he say this prior to signing them, or did he say this later about his situation prior to signing them. The latter seems more likely, but grammatically speaking the former is implied.
  • "Prior to the release of the album, 3 of Hearts' song "Just Might Change Your Life" was featured on the soundtrack for the film Where the Heart Is (2000);[1][7] the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers.[7] The samplers were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses." A little confusing. There were presumably lots of songs on the Where the Heart Is soundtrack, but the article doesn't say how many or which ones were included on the sampler, and does not say explicitly that "Just Might Change Your Life" was.
  • That is a good point. I would assume that "Just Might Change Your Life" is a part of the sampler given that the context of the article (i.e. it would be rather silly to include the information on the samplers in an article about 3 of Hearts if their song was not on said samples). I also interpreted this part from the source (i.e. "and its music was also included") as meaning that the entire album was included on the samplers. However, let me know if this is too ambiguous to support the above sentences about the sampler in the article. Just wanted to explain my reasoning behind it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preponed": Minor suggestion, but a couple of online sources says this word is primarily used in India. If the subject of the article was India-related and the article was meant to be in Indian English, I'd say by all means use the word. But possibly better not to use it for an American subject?
  • True; the word was actually added by an editor that did a copy-edit on the article (this individual did an absolutely wonderful job and really improved everything so I do not mean to throw this person under the bus). I have changed it for "pushed forward"; a previous reviewer on this FAC suggested "postponed", but it does not make sense in this context. On a random note, this is actually the first time that I saw the word "preponed" so it was cool to learn something new. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toni Basil, that's pretty cool she was involved with them. Maybe describe her as "singer and choreographer" (or even just "choreographer"—it's up to you). My impression is she's even more famous for her choreography than her singing.
  • I thought that it was a cool point as well! I agree that Basil is probably more well-known as a choreographer than a singer. I have added both titles as suggested. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Love Is Enough" and "Arizona Rain" both made appearances on Billboard charts. "Love Is Enough" peaked at number 43 on the Hot Country Songs and the Country Airplay charts on May 19, 2001; the single remained on both charts for ten weeks.[26][27] "Arizona Rain" reached number 59 on the Hot Country Song and the Country Airplay charts on August 18, 2001, and remained on both for a week."
  • Minor issue: The first instance calls the chart "Hot Country Songs" and the second "Hot Country Song".
  • Confusing for me: Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay are separate charts, right? Or are they somehow merged to be the same numbers? It seems like a huge coincidence that each of the two songs had exactly the same chart position and number of weeks on each of both charts.
  • I definitely agree with you on that part. Having two songs appear on the same chart position for the same number of weeks and reaching their peak position at the same time is rather dubious. The Billboard website treats both charts as separate entities, as noted by the two separate references. When reading through the Wikipedia article on the Hot Country Songs chart, I noticed this sentence (This 50-position chart lists the most popular country music songs, calculated weekly by collecting airplay data from Nielsen BDS along with digital sales and streaming.), which implies to me that there is overlap between these two charts. The Country Airplay chart does not track digital sales or streaming as done by the Hot Country Songs chart, but I highly doubt that digital sales or streaming was considered with this album's rankings given the time of its release. From this information, it seems that both of the charts are tracking the same information (i.e. airplay data) and that is why they have the same data on the two songs. Due to this, I think it would probably be best to remove the Hot Country Songs information here, and just keep the Country Airplay information, but I wanted to confirm this with you first. I apologize for the length of this response. I just wanted to try and explain what I think is the cause of all of this. It is all pretty opaque and confusing to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section: maybe it would be worthwhile to consider paraphrasing the following, for which direct quotes don't seem necessary. There may be other direct quotes throughout the article that would be worthwhile to paraphrase, but I wasn't really looking for them in this read-through.
That is a good point; I have a tendency to get a little quote-happy so I have tried to reduce them throughout the article. Please let me know if further reduction/revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:
Lead:

  • "younger audience": Seems vague. Would "teenaged audience" be too specific? Or "teenaged and young-adult audience"? Or might any of your sources give an age range that was targeted?
  • "marketed... through the group's crossover appeal": I'm not sure that "marketed through" makes sense. Possibly something like "The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore; its marketing focused on the group's crossover appeal to target a teenaged audience." Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording:

  • "Steve Hochman of Los Angeles Times associated 3 of Hearts with a trend towards younger country performers, connecting them with performers Jessica Andrews, LeAnn Rimes, and Lila McCann, and the band Marshall Dyllon, but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory".[5] The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger listener;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format"." This part seems to say the same thing three or four times. I also specifically found the transition to "but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory" " confusing and awkward. I'm not sure what the "but" is trying to say here. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that the information is different form one another. The Los Angeles Times source focuses on how younger country artists are signed to record labels, while Ken Kragen source focuses on how the group and the album are marketed for a younger audience, which in my opinion are two separate concepts. I have decided to remove the "adult territory" part as another reviewer took issue with it as well. My original intention was to emphasize how country radio listeners are primarily adults as a way to transition into the later information on the group's removal from the record label. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aoba, life's been a bit busier than expected the last few days. I have noticed some more points I want to comment on but I just need a window of time where I can sit down and organize my thoughts while typing stuff up. I will try to fit in time soon. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if this review is a bit scattered, but I never got a chance to reply to our discussion about Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay. You proposed "I think it would probably be best to remove the Hot Country Songs information here, and just keep the Country Airplay information, but I wanted to confirm this with you first." I agree with you this would be a good idea.
  • No worries; I am just glad that you have helped me with so many reviews so I greatly appreciate all of your help. There is really no time limit on these things so don't feel rush or anything. There are a lot of things in life that should take priority over this lol. I have removed the Hot Country Songs from the article. It was interesting to learn more about the Billboard charts actually. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and recording: "3 of Hearts was one of three new artists signed to an RCA label; the others were John Rich and Carolyn Dawn Johnson." This implies maybe Rich and Johnson were signed around the same time as 3 of Hearts, but it doesn't say so explicitly. There's also no context for why it may be significant. Was there some kind of pattern or trend for the three signings, or maybe it was just coincidence? (Record labels sign new artists all the time, plus "signed to an RCA label" implies the signings were across multiple divisions.)
  • I understand your point, and I have removed that sentence. I agree that it does not have much relevance, and I would not be surprised if other artists were signed at this time that were just not reported in the source. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger listener;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format"." This still feels to me like it could be made more compact, but I see your point that the angle is slightly different between the first part and second. Maybe paraphrasing the quotation might make it feel less superfluous? But if you still disagree, I won't insist on this point.
  • "In 2001, Rogers sued Kragen for allegedly poaching 3 of Hearts from his company, Rogers' Dreamcatcher Management Co.;[8][9] Kragen responded by saying Rogers' company had rejected 3 of Hearts." Any info about the outcome of this legal suit? The reader is kind of left wondering...
  • Regarding one of the points above where I didn't have a chance to reply to you reply: Maybe remove "the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers.[7] The samplers were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses." It seems like a less-important detail, plus the issue of the source not explicitly saying the 3 of Hearts song was on it. (I do understand your reasoning, but I think it's probably safer to remove it.) Will continue soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition and sound: "The instrumentals include fiddles and drums that are commonly used in contemporary country music." Is this supposed to mean they were are a particular kind of fiddles and drums used in country music—which is implied by "that" but still sounds a bit ambiguous. Or is it supposed to be saying that not just a particular kind but fiddles and drums in general are commonly used in country music? If so, I think "...fiddles and drums, which are..." is more grammatically correct to begin a nonrestrictive clause. But if it's the latter case, I also think (even if grammatically correct) "The instrumentals include fiddles and drums, which are commonly used in contemporary country music" sounds a little awkward. Maybe something like "...fiddles and drums, which AllMusic writer Stephen Thomas Erlewine has noted are commonly used in country music" would give a little more weight to the statement to justify its inclusion. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit torn about the inclusion in this section of brief mentions of the lyrical themes of some of the songs. On one hand, it may be somewhat encyclopedic to include whatever limited info is available. But on the other hand, the descriptions that are included (e.g., "lyrics about the importance of love") are so generic, I wonder if they really add much to the reader's understanding of the work. I'm guessing it's not available, but if more info were available to expand the discussion of the lyrical themes a little, maybe to find some trends across the album as a whole (different variations on the theme of love, with several specifics mentioned??), that would be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information about the lyrics and the song's content is not available. I find the information helpful as it is pointing out a common theme/topic featured over several songs, but if you feel that it is absolutely necessary, I can remove it. There is not much out there on the actually lyrical content of this album. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Commentators criticized 3 of Hearts and the trio's vocals as generic and lacking an authentic country sound.[5][18] Country Standard Time's Dan MacIntosh criticized the album as manufactured, describing its content as "impersonal, yet functional, songs".” Two sentences in a row with “criticized”. Could you replace one of them? Moisejp (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

edit
  • Shouldn't it be "studio album of American group" instead of "by"?
  • For a majority of the album articles that I have read, they have used the construction "studio album by XYZ", but I am not opposed to revising this part if you feel that it would be better words this way. Aoba47 (talk)
  • Nah. I was kind of the fence on that one. Seeing as it's with "by" in other articles then it's fine.
  • I feel like the line about what kind of genre it belongs to require some further expansion / clarrification. Was it listed as teen pop / country music by the group or the record label while critics classified it as pop?
  • I pulled the teen pop/country music identification for the album from the AllMusic review, which is present in the "Composition and sound" section. To the best of my knowledge, the record label marketed the group and their music to country radio, while various music critics felt that the album was more pop than country. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how to improve upon this part to maker it more transparent. I have been looking at this article for a while so I could very well just be used to something at this point that needs more clarification for a new reader if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add that multiple critics have identified the album as an example of country music and pop music so I do not see much of an issue here about that as the genres are sourced in the appropriate "composition" section as done in a majority of high-quality album articles. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Background and recording", I feel like it would be better to have "suggestions" in singular rather than plurar. Though that's just my POV.
  • Question: By "four tracks" does that mean they recorded just four song or does "tracks" work like categories and they actually covered multiple songs of Twain and McBride?
  • It is intended to mean just four songs (i.e. the demo tape had a Twain song, a McBride song, a gospel song, and the "Star-Spangled Banner"). I could revise this part if you think that it should be clarified (i.e. use a different word than "tracks") as I can see how it can be interpreted as something else. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best to do that so that leymen like me can understand. Maybe just say the tape was "composed of four songs" rather than "four tracks".

I've already gone through the article twice and couldn't really find anything else that seemed like it needed changing. Might do a triple check but for now it seems like a well-written article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: OK, I've gone through the article again and I can't find anything wrong with it. I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised given that it's you. I'm still curious about how you even found out about the groups existence but that's a discussion for another time. Seeing as how this is a well-written and informative article on a music album I'd it passes. Too bad the group itself didn't pass into mainstream. :P PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words! I cannot remember how I came across this album and the group. I remember that I wanted to do expand the article because I found the whole idea of a bubblegum/teen pop take on country music to be interesting, and I thought the album cover was interesting. I enjoy doing a lot of these more obscure subject matters and bring them to FAC. I am honestly surprised that RCA did not try to at least get one more album out of them lol. Hope you are having a wonderful day or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Status Update

edit
  • @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received several reviews, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful beginning of the year. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2018 [2].

K-25

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the Manhattan Project. This one is about the gaseous diffusion project, codenamed K-25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

edit

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only found a couple of minor nit-picks to point out, not counting a couple of source formatting issues that Brianboulton caught. It's a good read.

  • Construction: I see J.A. Jones and J. A. Jones in this section. Pick one and stick with it; the latter usage is my personal preference.
    The problem here is that MOS:INITIALS says that "An initial is followed by a full point (period) and a space" but the corresponding article is not so named. Added a redirect to make the usage consistent in this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other buildings: "bottled and stored fluorine. Fluorine...". Try not to repeat the same word from the end of one sentence to the beginning of another like this, as it comes off repetitive.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM I'm not across the science, so am taking that as read. Not much to nitpick:

What I find interesting is that if I had been asked to design a method of isotope separation, I would have first thought of electromagnetic, and then centrifugal. But the scientists of the day thought first of thermal, and then of gaseous diffusion, harking back to 19th century physics. (I also thought that every reader would look at the number 1.0043 and then reach for their calculator to figure out how many stages are theoretically required in a perfect barrier system. But it could just be me.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

That's it for now i can't find anything else but it looks great. CPA-5 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything more in my opinion the page has met the FA criteria. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit

Hopefully I can help to put this one to bed.

  • No DABs or overlinking.
  • External links OK
  • Link roller to Road roller
  • I see that K-27 allowed the project to attain the 60% enrichment rate, but what allowed them to reach the 94% enrichment postwar? More stages?
    No, just by using the ones they had in a continuous series.Add a bit to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2018 [5].

Anne Hathaway

edit
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hathaway is a talented and beautiful actress, who has played roles in a range of films. I started expanding her article (for Wikipedia:WikiCup and what I have stated in the beginning) from New Year's Day. I recently got a very helpful feedback from Ceranthor. Any constructive criticism appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

First column:

  • Ref 3: Retrieval date missing
  • Ref 4: Link does not go to the stated page
  • Ref 7: Title should correspond to what's given in the source
  • Ref 13: Likewise.
  • Ref 20: Link not working – error message
Removed.
  • Ref 32: Needs a page number
I do not have access to that and have thus replaced it with an online-available source.
  • Ref 34: It isn't necessary to include a quotation from the source – that is the purpose of the link.
  • Ref 54: The publisher appears to be Ebert Digital LLC, not Chicago Sun-Times.
  • Ref 67: What makes Drew Tewksbury a high quality reliable source?
I thought a lot about removing it during expansion, but believed it would be okay since it's an official interview. Removed now.
  • Ref 70: The paper's proper title is The Daily Telegraph

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have done all those things above. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second column

  • Ref 78: link returns an error message
  • Ref 93: link goes to a different Toronto Sun page
  • Ref 100: link goes to a different MTV page
  • Ref 107: I can't find this title on the linked page
  • Ref 111: "Christopher Orr" is not part of the title
  • Ref 132: The linked page is a list of winners, not nominations. Is this the intended source? If so the title should be amended to what the source says.
It lists both winners and nominees.

Final column to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply removed "deadurl=no" from these sources to show the archive link as the main one. I have used "Autofill" for titles when citing sources that's why some of the sources titles are different (than their sources); they write what can be seen on the tab as the title. FrB.TG (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Brian. In this edit, I went through every later source to make sure the titles correspond with what given in the sources and remove "deadurl=no" if the links have died. Do you think you could finish review sometime soon? Thanks. FrB.TG (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I had posted my clearance on the third column. Nothing amiss there. You can consider the sources review completed satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

edit
  • "She is married to businessman Adam Shulman, with whom she has a son." - name?
Removed back per WP:MINORS.
  • Keep the absence or presence of the serial comma consistent throughout. Looks like you're mostly not using it, but I see it in the lead ("Hathaway has also sung for soundtracks, won an Emmy Award for providing her voice in a television show, appeared on stage, and hosted events.")
  • " won an Emmy Award for providing her voice in a television show" - which show?
  • "participated in many plays, including performance as Winnifred in Once Upon a Mattress.[11] " - not grammatically correct as is ("including performance")
  • "She has stated she would have either become an English teacher or psychologist if she were not acting." - stated that
  • "She cites Garland as one of her favorite actresses.[10] " - kind of disjointed within the flow of its paragraph; either tie it in or move it somewhere else
  • 'Hathaway said that "anybody who was a role model for children needs a reprieve", but noted that "it's lovely to think that my audience is growing up with me"' - think it would help to mention when she said this.

More comments forthcoming. ceranthor 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Look forward to the rest. FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Peter Travers of Rolling Stone believed that Hathaway "excels at showing Lureen's journey from cutie-pie to hard case" and Todd McCarthy of Variety opined she "provides an entertaining contrast in wifely disappointment"." - comma after hard case"
  • "Meryl Streep, whom Hathaway described as being "just divine".[5] " - probably don't need this bit after "whom"
  • "Charles Isherwood opined that Hathaway "dives smoothly and with obvious pleasure into the embrace of a cohesive ensemble cast".[71]" - needs something like "Of her performance" or "Describing her performance" at the beginning
  • "She also won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance for providing her voice for the episode "Once Upon a Time in Springfield" in The Simpsons.[73]" - what year? I'd also adjust the flow of this sentence by adding "In X year, she also won..."
  • "Hathaway voiced different characters in Family Guy in 2010 and 2011.[74][75] " - I'd move this up to the end of the previous paragraph, since it relates to her voice work with The Simpsons better than the rest of this paragraph
  • "the film grossed $1 billion to become the second highest-grossing of 2010.[80]" - second highest-grossing movie maybe? Missing film/movie makes it read awkwardly.
  • "Preparing for the nude scenes," - the film's nude scenes... adding that word is important, I think, because it currently reads as abrupt by just saying "the nude scenes"
  • 'Hathaway's portrayal, of what Ebert called "warm, lovable"' - grammatically, this doesn't make sense... maybe you're missing a word?
  • "than Franco, who they felt seemed uninterested." - think it should be "whom"
I think who is correct here. If we use "whom" to refer to Franco, it would read as the critics felt Franco (as in feeling him) not that they felt Franco seemed uninterested.
  • "Hathaway was clandestinely given the script as One Day was set in the UK and Scherfig was not looking for any American actresses for the part." - comma after UK
  • ""Sometimes she's from Scotland, sometimes she's from New York, you just can't tell"." - it's implied, but you should be clear that this quote refers to Hathaway per the source
  • " for Audie Award for Best Solo Narration" - an Audie Award
  • "Wanting to work with her favorites, DeNiro and Meyers," - favorites? elaborate?
  • "Hathaway purchased an apartment worth $2.55 million in Upper West Side" - you should clarify that the UWS is a neighborhood in Manhattan
  • "In 2008, she began smoking" - cigarettes?
Doesn't say what she smoked. Maybe everything? ;-)
  • "She later became a vegan in early 2012,[162] but quit while filming Interstellar in August 2014.[163]" - has she tried resuming it at all, or is she still no longer vegan?
Haven't found a source that says she is a vegan again.
  • "Hathaway currently serves on the board of The Lollipop Theatre Network, and is involved with charities The Creative Coalition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, The Human Rights Campaign.[170][171]' - serial comma issue and I think an "and" is missing
  • I suspect that many of the links in the "Works and accolades" section have already been linked. I'm not sure it's necessary to link them again.

Nice work on this article. This should constitute all of my prose comments. ceranthor 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review here and at Talk:Anne Hathaway#Comments from Ceranthor. Very much appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Support per 1a. ceranthor 23:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
The photo is uploaded by MFF but taken by Rene G. Clarified there.
All images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review.

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

edit

Lead section:

  • In the lead, the Batman link to the trilogy needs to be fixed. Use this. Also, I'd recommend changing it to "The Dark Knight trilogy".
  • You mention Hathaway's role as the White Queen in the Alice sequel but don't mention the original film. I think you should add that at the end of the second paragraph.

Early life:

  • In the lead, and the infobox, it's stated that Hathaway's middle name is Jackqueline; yet here you refer to her as Anne Jack Hathaway.
  • You refer to Hathaway's mother as Kate first but then as Kathleen. Be consistent.
  • Damn, psychologist or English teacher? I think I love her even more than before.

More comments will come up. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All addressed and looking forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2001–2004: Debut and breakthrough:

  • The Princess Diaries should be linked.
  • I don't really mind it but are you sure "she famously fell" is necessary? If you think so I don't mind.
  • I'm not sure "indifferent reviews" is the best description. Do you mean negative ones, mixed?
  • When you say that she sang three song on the soundtrack do you mean an additional three song (thus five overal) or the two she sang in the film plus one?
  • I just have to say, considering the length of this article, besides a few nitpicks it's extremely well-written.
Thank you. For the first comment, TPD is already linked in the early life section. Otherwise done. FrB.TG (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005–2008: Transition to adult roles and greater success:

  • Since this article is about Hathaway, there is no reason to include Streep's part in the Rotten Tomatoes description.
I would agree if it were a normal review, but this is a general consensus among critics. I don't know, it feels a little incomplete without part.
  • My grammar isn't perfect but when it says that Hathaway dropped out of Knocked Up, shouldn't it say "[she] believeD it" rather than "believes"?
  • Regarding Hathaway's role in Rachel Getting Married you just say that she plays a young woman but then mention her character's name is Kym. While I get who you're talking about I still think you should mention the character's name earlier as well to avoid potential confusion.

2012–2014: Les Misérables and films with Christopher Nolan:

  • Regarding the Washington Posts's review, you don't need to use a capital T.

2015–present: The Intern and beyond

  • Did she lipsync both of those song or did she and Blunt sing one each?
  • I think you need to rework "she auditioned for the third time". At first glance it looks like she had to go into an audition for the role three times. Maybe say "this was the third time Hathaway had auditioned for a Myers film".

Personal life and other work:

  • In the second paragraph, you say Hathaway way (damnit) too often. Sometimes replace it with just "she".

@FrB.TG: Alright, I went through the entire article. The above, are the only things that need changing. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have resolved these. Thank you for the comments. FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to give my support to this article. I'm really happy of the work you've done here. The article really does look amazing. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise

edit
  • “Directed by Peter Segal, the film, centering on an analyst named who dreams of becoming a real field agent and a better spy, was a financial success”: There seems to be a name missing here after “named”. Moisejp (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moise. Simply removed "named" as the character has two names, adding which will be overkill in Hathaway's article. FrB.TG (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hathaway previously served as a long-term advocate for the Nike Foundation to raise awareness against child marriage." I'm not saying it's impossible, but "previously" feels a little awkward and unclear here. Was it previously in relation to Interstellar? There doesn't seem to be any clear relationship.
  • "she has also been honored for her work with Step Up Women's Network.[168] She then teamed up in 2010 with World Bank in a two-year development program". Grammatically awkward to have the present perfect ("has been honored") with "then" + the simple past ("teamed up"). Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

edit
  • The second line in the opening paragraph: "One of the world's highest-paid actresses in 2015, she appeared in the Forbes Celebrity 100 in 2009" is really the best part of the lead. I mean what does her being in Forbes 100 in 2009 have to do with her earnings in 2015. This would be work better if the earnings bit be combined with her film earning $6 billion. That might just be me though.
  • Not too sure if televisions shows should have year mentioned​ the way it has been. Get Real ran for two years I believe.
  • You could replace the last occurrence of "Hathaway" in the third paragraph with "She".
  • Same with the last paragraph of the Early Life section.
  • The first half of the secomd paragraph of the Early Life section overuses the word "Hathaway". Why don't to use her mother's first name Instead of calling​ her "Hatchway's mother"? That can be done once or twice?

More to follow. VedantTalk 09:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might want to rethink the two large quotations in the In the media section. Not sure what they add to the article, considering it's the subject talking about herself. VedantTalk 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think of them as large, but one or both of them could possibly be paraphrased, I think. Otherwise I have resolved your other comments. FrB.TG (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

  • "The fantasy romantic comedy film Ella Enchanted (2004), in which she played the titular character, also performed poorly at the box-office." - I think you should use Hathaway here instead of the next sentence.
  • You might want to mention the release year for Hoodwinked! and Havoc.
  • Do you think that it's worth mentioning that Valentine's Day features a bug ensemble cast?
Well it does say that the film is an ensemble rom-com. I think that should be enough.
  • "After a nonproductive meeting with Scherfig, Hathaway left a list of songs for her, who after listening to them, cast the actress for the part." - It's a little vague IMO.
The footnote should clarify this.
  • "That March, it was reported that she would reprise her role for The Princess Diaries 3." - It would help if we knew what March. There is no mention of the year in the previous sentence, not for the release of Alice.
  • Now here: "science fiction black comedy film Colossal (2016)", you don't need to mention the year, because you do it at the beginning of the sentence.
  • You could avoid the repetition of "In X Year, she joined the cast of Y project" in the last paragraph of the section.

That's pretty much. Fine work. VedantTalk 17:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. These should be resolved by now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support the nomination. Good luck. VedantTalk 07:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I would think that a more detailed caption for the infobox image would be needed (i.e. where was this picture taken).
  • For this part (In 2012, Hathaway starred as Catwoman in her highest-grossing film The Dark Knight Rises (2012),), would it be more accurate to say that she played Selina Kyle as her character in the Nolan film was never called Catwoman to the best of my knowledge. I apologize for this as it is rather nitpicky.
Absolutely no need to apologize. In fact thanks for bringing it up; despite having seen the film, I never noticed it.
  • For this part (final installment in the Batman trilogy.), it really is the Dark Knight Trilogy not the Batman trilogy. I would correct this in the lead and the “2012–2014: Les Misérables and films with Christopher Nolan” subsection.
  • For this part (in Tom Hooper's musical romantic drama Les Misérables (2012)), I would clarify that it is an adaptation of the musical as it can read to an unfamiliar reader that this is an original production.
I think it's over-kill for the lead. It is, however, mentioned in the main body.
  • For this sentence (Later, she appeared in plays, including Jane Eyre and Gigi, at New Jersey's Paper Mill Playhouse.), do we know what parts she played in both?
  • I think that this sentence (For the filming of her cinematic debut The Princess Diaries (2001), Hathaway missed her first college semester.) would read better in reverse (i.e. Hathaway missed her first college semester for the filming of her cinematic debut The Princess Diaries (2001)).
  • I am not quite sure about the Venice premiere image. It is rather low-quality in my opinion. I would replace it with a better image (either of her during the time period or of someone related to the work that she had done in that time period) or remove it altogether. However, this is up to you. I just wanted to point it out for discussion.
  • Link Gary Marshall
It's actually Garry (thanks for bringing it up; corrected) and is already linked in the beginning of career section.
  • Would it be noteworthy or beneficial to include a small sentence about how Hathaway talking about feeling internalized misogyny when working with Lone Scherfig for One Day?
Thanks for this. Added.
  • For this sentence (Preparing for the role, Hathaway consumed fewer than 500 calories a day to lose 25 pounds (11 kg), researched prostitution, and cut her hair.), you use the Oxford comma, but you do not use it in other places. Be consistent either way.
  • For this part (she lip synced "Love" by Mary J. Blige and "Wrecking Ball" by Miley Cyrus.), I would add the years in which the original songs were released.
  • For this sentence (Hathaway began 2015 with an appearance in the first season of the musical reality show Lip Sync Battle (2015).), I do not believe that the (2015) part is necessary as it is rather repetetive.
  • For this part (Hathaway and Streisand perform the song At The Ballet from), the song title should be in quotation marks and not in italics.
  • For this part (later comparing it to Being John Malkovich, one of her favorite films), I would add the year in which the film was released.

Great work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba, thank you for your review; some really great suggestions. Hopefully I have resolved your comments to your satisfaction. FrB.TG (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2018 [6].

Harry R. Truman

edit
Nominator(s): ceranthor 16:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating folk hero, Harry R. Truman was quite the badass. After cleaning up the prose, expanding this a bit, and fixing the citations, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It also recently received helpful feedback from FrB.TG, Carcharoth, and ArturSik. ceranthor 16:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, FrB.TG. ceranthor 16:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

edit

Support Been looking forward to this one. Just a couple of things. Been looking forward to this one.

  • "despite a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages" I think if you say "despite Prohibition", it will be fine. Incidentally, the Volstead Act is what banned alcohol, the amendment simply gave Congress that authority.
  • " but he was too afraid to drink alcohol because of the earthquakes coming from St. Helens.[4]" Not sure this makes sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, Wehwalt. I think it could make a great TFA for April Fool's, spoofing President Truman. I changed the second comment's sentence to this: "but he was too afraid to drink alcohol because he was unsure whether the shaking was coming from his body or the earthquakes from St. Helens." The source quote is ""She brought him a bottle of Schenley's and he put it in the cupboard and said he didn't dare take a drink because he couldn't tell if the earthquakes were shaking or if it was him," Rosen said." What do you think? ceranthor 20:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that indicates what was going on better.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D

edit

This is an interesting article, but it would benefit from some tightening:

  • "he contracted a number of injuries due to his audacious and independent nature" - what does this mean? Did he get into accidents or similar due to taking risks? (this is basically peacock prose)
The ref says this: "Because of his risk-taking and independent attitude, he often suffered injuries, yet he refused medical attention and never stayed a night in a hospital." Not sure what else to make of that.
It seems unlikely. Injured soldiers don't get the option to refuse medical treatment. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So should I nix the part about never being in a hospital? ceranthor 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. A challenge with articles such as this is that the sources tend to be ultimately based on media reports of the recollections of an old man or those of their friends and relatives, and so need to be taken with considerable salt. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though he reportedly never spent a night in a hospital" - This seems unlikely: armies tend to be pretty strict about sending injured soldiers to hospital for significant injuries, with opting out not being an option. The source appears unlikely to have checked his army personnel papers.
See above. That's why I put "reportedly."
  • "He also survived a torpedo attack on a military vessel off of Ireland" - the source says it was a "troopship" which may have been a chartered civilian ship
Another less reliable source claims that it's the RMS Lusitania. But wouldn't troopship imply a military ship?
No: huge numbers of civilian ships were chartered in both world wars but remained under civilian ownership (for instance, the luxury liners and more humble vessels). He definitely wasn't on the Lusitania if he was in the US Army given that it was sunk 2 years before the US entered the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So should I change it back to troopship, then? ceranthor 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did he get married? Did he have any children?
Not mentioned in any reliable sources. The only place I could find this was the Rosen book, which some other sources seemed to question the accuracy of, hence why I didn't rely upon it primarily. I can try and get ahold of it by next week so I can search for this information.
  • "After Washington passed" - please identify the body which passed this change, not the state
I changed to "After the Washington state government"; the source says "when the state passed a ruling that changed the sales tax"
  • "A fan of the cocktail drink Schenley Whisky and Coke, Truman owned a pink 1957 Cadillac car" - is this relevant? (and when did he own the car?)
I thought it added to descriptions of his character.
  • "he was also noted for his use of profanity" - noted by whom? The "he was noted" construction which appears a few times in the article is rather imprecise and clunky: could it be changed to "he often swore" or similar?
Changed.
  • "Truman discarded all of his concerns" - these concerns haven't been previously noted: can you please describe what they were? Had he had previous bad experiences with the mountain or similar?
Changed to "Truman displayed little concern about the volcano and his situation" - think that was more what I was going for originally.
  • "he took a helicopter trip to visit them" - where did he get the helicopter from? (noting that helicopter rides are very expensive): presumably the media paid for this?
Source says "Harry’s wish met with enthusiasm at the school, and so a helicopter was arranged to take him there on Wednesday, May 14." Unsure. Will keep looking.
Aha! Found it. Fixed.
  • "He attracted media frenzy" - is this really correct? A media 'frenzy' tends to be a bigger deal, and the previous paras state he was only "a minor celebrity" and "something of a "folk hero""
The source said that media attention kept escalating. I think a frenzy is appropriate.
  • "Truman was also famous for owning 16 cats" - the source doesn't say this was a source of fame (incidentally, it also notes that he was in an evacuation zone and refused an attempt by "state officials" to persuade him to leave the day before the evacuation, which isn't in the article at present)
Thanks for that catch. Fixed to reflect the source, and added this bit to the death section.
  • Has there been any scholarly analysis of why Truman attracted so much public interest? On face value, the man was a petty criminal in his youth and reckless in his last weeks, with the seemingly admiring media coverage of his refusal to evacuate being part of the pre-eruption tendency to downplay the scale of the threat (and may have contributed to his decision to not evacuate). Is he seen as being an embodiment of the west or similar? (independent man on the land, etc).
Precisely. I can add another little bit about this.

Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I've replied to a few of your comments. I will work on these suggestions and get back to you asap. ceranthor 22:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, I think I've replied to / fixed all of these. ceranthor 23:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, thanks to a related RfD discussion, I've found a more reliable source that discusses Truman's family history in more depth. I'll add some material from that tomorrow. ceranthor 04:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I've added some details about his wives and his daughter. Not much, but better than nothing. I also fixed the other two remaining suggestions. ceranthor 13:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and your support. ceranthor 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

edit
No, it's not clarified in any of the sources I've found.
No, it's not available in any of the existing reliable sources as far as I know.
  • Prohibition did last from 1920 to 1933, but it's not clear if that's the same time that Truman spent as a bootlegger. In fact, the timeline on when he opened up his lodge makes me think he probably stopped before the end of Prohibition. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix that. ceranthor 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to find it under a reliable source. Added. ceranthor 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Good work on a fascinating character. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: I think I have addressed these comments. ceranthor 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Appears to meet the FA criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. ceranthor 05:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Sthelensharrytruman.jpg: Image is appropriate, but the source link is broken. I found an archived link. It says "courtesy of" which makes the licensing a little suspect; the US government often hosts copyrighted images as fair use and "courtesy of" is a frequent signal thereof. On the other hand, the photographer is apparently an USGS employee so this time it may actually be PD-USGov if we assume that the photo was taken as part of that employee's job - which given that the other photos of St. Helens's eruption are also attributed to him is likely.
  • Indeed, I see "USGS Photo courtesy of Richard Waitt."
  • Thanks.
  • Replaced with [7].
  • So could you clarify the issue with this, then?
Some images have ALT text and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Fixed/replied to your comments. Fixed the alt text as well. ceranthor 15:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of EXIF is sometimes a sign that the image was taken from elsewhere - such as the linked Flickr stream. In this case it does probably not say much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if there is anything left for me to resolve. ceranthor 17:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article would benefit from a map showing the location of the lodge in relation to the volcano. 81.147.9.221 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but do you know of any public domain or attributable sources that offer such a map? ceranthor 23:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All what would be needed are precise enough coordinates, and since they are not copyrightable you could derive them from a non-free map as well. With them you can write a map on Wikipedia. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I haven't the slightest idea how to do that. ceranthor 02:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Is there any chance you could walk me through the steps, or link me somewhere that could help me figure it out? ceranthor 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably add the map myself or ask someone from the commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop to write one up; I've never been good at "walk-through" explanations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, if you could make one, it would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if I can be any help. ceranthor 13:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't do it without coordinates, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, unfortunately, I couldn't find them. Thanks for your help. ceranthor 15:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lodge appears on various USGS topographic maps of the area (including this one from 1957), which have the approximate coordinates marked. SounderBruce 04:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: will you be able to make something out of this? ceranthor 18:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like cropping and uploading that map (which is PD-USGov per its own text) would do the job. Is there a source link that isn't a direct file link? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: is there a separate source? ceranthor 20:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found it using the TopoView tool, but citing the image directly should be fine. SounderBruce 00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, see above. ceranthor 00:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[[SounderBruce, is St. Helens on the map you linked? ceranthor 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the map. At 1:62500 scale, which is the most detailed for the area, the St. Helens caldera is on a separate map from the Spirit Lake area, so it would need to be stitched. Other scales (e.g. this 1:250,000 map) show both areas, but the Lodge itself isn't specifically labeled. SounderBruce 04:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that will be a problem (and it's nonobvious how to get to the file from https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#13/46.2293/-122.1897). Perhaps it's better to simply say "The lodge was close to the outlet of Spirit Lake" and use the file as a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. @Ian Rose: @Sarastro1: Let me know if you think there are any other changes that need to be made here. ceranthor 16:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To access the files, you drop a pin on the map, then choose from the maps displayed on the right hand panel. Opens in a new window as a full JPEG. There's also the ESRI/USGS explorer, from which higher-quality PDFs (in ZIP files) can be downloaded. SounderBruce 06:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 34 lacks publisher details
  • Some of the "Sources" entries look a little incomplete. You can get more on the Gawande book from WorldCat, here, including the ISBN. You can get a little more on the Foxworthy and Hill book here, including OCLC (no ISBN apparently). There ought to be an ISBN for the Slatta book, but I can't find this volume on WorldCat, Amazon or ABE.

Otherwise, sources are in good orderand of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Should be fixed. ceranthor 22:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ArturSik

edit

Sorry for such late response. I have thorougly read the article few days prior to its nomination and was really satisfied with its shape and content. I have now had a look at it again and can fully support it. The article is precise and in my opinion doesn't lack any information. I think it's a great source of information for anyone interested in Truman's story. Well done Ceranthor. ArturSik (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, ArturSik. ceranthor 19:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2018 [8].

Anbe Sivam

edit
Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Anbe Sivam, a 2003 Indian Tamil film starring Kamal Haasan and R. Madhavan. The film is known for its story, screenplay, dialogues, performances and music. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld for reviewing the GAN and to my fellow editors who peer reviewed it. This is my fourth FAC attempt and my first solo nomination. Constructive comments here are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792

edit
Lead

I think the infobox shouldn't include dialogue writers.

Plot

You could remove the actor names to reduce the plot, and avoid overlinking (if actors are linked in the plot, they can't be linked in the production section).

Cast

This complies with WP:FILMCAST, so no problem.

Development
  • Don't straightaway mention the film, like "After completing a draft of the film's script in early 2002, Kamal approached the Malayalam filmmaker Priyadarshan to direct the film". The film has to be introduced somehow. Perhaps something like, "After completing the draft of a film script in early 2002, Kamal approached the Malayalam filmmaker Priyadarshan to direct it ... The film's title Anbe Sivam was derived from the Shaivite saint Tirumular's poem Tirumantiram.
  • "In a 2008 interview with The Times of India, Sundar C. stated that Anbe Sivam "changed [him] personally and professionally", making him a more confident person and changing his outlook towards life" - I think this is better put in the Legacy section
Casting
  • A lot of crew members are mentioned here, when they are better put in the development section. Or retitle the section to "cast and crew".
Filming

Nothing much to say here.

Themes
  • You may want to expand upon the "Tennāṭuṭaiya Śivanē pöṛṛi" sentence using info from the source.
Box office
  • "In later interviews with Nakkheeran and Dinamalar, Sundar C. revealed that the failure of Anbe Sivam led him to become almost bankrupt and he remained unpaid for his work. His bank accounts frozen by the income tax department for a year for not being able to pay his taxes" - please ensure that those are actual interviews with Sundar C, and not reproducing content from an earlier interview.
Legacy
  • Now that the article is large enough, I think un-detailed comparisons of other films with Anbe Sivam can be removed.

More comments to follow soon. I would also like to see the article mention somewhere that Sundar C was better known for making commercial films, and Anbe Sivam was dissimilar to those (See where this can fit). --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I have resolved all your comments now. Do have a look and tell me if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just three concerns remaining: First, mention the film's release date in the "release" section, and move the BBFC source there. Second, Madhan, the dialogue writer, is still in the infobox under the "writer" parameter. But Template:Infobox film says, "This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by"." I think that credit usually applies to story/screenplay writers only. Third, please try to integrate the large footnote talking about how the movie ruined Sundar C financially into the main text, since it is too large for a footnote. Usually, footnotes include optional info only, but this contains essential info. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: Done as asked hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I hope this passes FAC. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

edit
  • "The film's story and screenplay were written by Kamal Haasan". Why not directly write: The film was written by Kamal Haasan.
  • The film was released on 15 January 2003 to positive reviews from critics, but it underperformed at the box office.
  • You might want to link Tamil cinema in the lead, as its not linked elsewhere.
  • The budget and BO info should be included in the infobox.

That's it from me, sounds like a must-watch film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: The budget and BO need not necessarily be included in the infobox. You can choose not to do so in case of edit wars over it. Some random IP editor might keep on changing the values and it would be better not to include them. Nevertheless, I've included the budget like in Enthiran, my other FA, if that's alright. The rest have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

edit
  • The final paragraph of the plot can be structured better to avoid the repetiton of character names, in this part in particular: "After signing the papers, Padayatchi instructs his assistant to eliminate Nalla. However, his assistant has a change of heart as he is about to kill Nalla. Padayatchi's assistant believes that the misdeeds he committed for Padayatchi resulted in the death of the assistant's daughter. Padayatchi's assistant requests Nalla to leave Chennai and stay as far away from Padayatchi as possible; Nalla assents and walks away."
I have stated him as "Padayathi's assistant" as he is not given a name in the film. I've changed a bit. Do let me know how it looks like.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some minor changes in the plot. Let me know if I messed up.
  • I think it would be better if you mention that Kamal plays the lead in the Cast and crew section. It's not as obvious we would like at the moment
  • "to be the most favourite roles of his career" - two superlatives aren't standard.
  • I am sorry but what do you mean by "The make-up process"?
  • "Post-filming" might not be the best choice of words.
  • Maybe you could say "Throughout the narrative" instead of "During the journey", as themes being addressed in a journey" reads a little odd to me.
  • "shows Kamal's" - showcases?
  • "By making that choice in the form of humanism against capitalism and globalisation, Kamal indicates that man's transformation into God occurs through the belief that "Siva is love"" - This could be structured better with more text in direct quotes because it isn't a very factual or encyclopedia-like.
  • "Tennāṭuṭaiya Śivanē pöṛṛi" ("Praise Śiva who resides in the ancient land and who belongs to all of humanity" - I am not an expert but shouldn't the Tamil bit be in Italics instead of the English bit?
  • "Kamal and Madhavan reprise the roles played by Candy and Martin in that film, respectively." - Not too sure if "reprise" is the best of choice.
  • Bear with me here: I think the latter half of the second paragraph in the section, starting from "According to Kamal, the characterisation of Nallasivam..." fits better in the first paragraph right after the "Kamal's views as a humanist". Consequently, the second paragraph can begin with "According to M. Kalyanaraman of The Times of India, Anbe Sivam proposes..." and then have the "The film features a Tamil proverb from..." in the same paragraph. I think it'll help with better flow and more thematic unity.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 07:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: I have hopefully resolved your comments thus far. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little concerned about the critical reception section, but I think you've received substantial commentary on it since. It looks good to me. Fine work Ssven2, Support. NumerounovedantTalk 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Numerounovedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Let There Be Sunshine

edit

Some minor suggestions:

  • Remove italics from title translation, since it's not an English language title of the film
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's not patronymic, Kamal Haasan should be mentioned by his last name Haasan
Let There Be Sunshine, please have a look here, here, here and here for further clarification regarding this.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the country or how he is often referred, it's a matter of formal and informal mentioning. Haven't you read MOS:LASTNAME. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects needs fixing - Vidyasagar, globalisation, Thoongadhey Thambi Thoongadhey, Film soundtrack, Vijaykanth, Carnatic raga
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After completing the draft of a film's script" → "After completing the draft for a film's script"
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priyadarshan wanted to collaborate with the director" - which director ? Is this a sentence error ?
Done. Rectified.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In casting, mention Uma Riyaz Khan and R. Madhavan after the first mention with their last name.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an interview with S. R. Ashok Kumar of The Hindu" - is S. R. Ashok Kumar worth mentioning ?
Yes, Let There Be Sunshine. This is because he is the one who is interviewing the producers so it is imperative to include his name irrespective of whether he's noteworthy or not.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence can be also made without that. Anyway, I'm not going to insist. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink "non-Tamil" in Themes and influences
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kandasamy Padayatchi utters this" → "Padayatchi utters this"
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "which cleared it with a "U" certificate," per WP:FILMRATING
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Vijay starrer" → "Vijay-starring"
Done. I've reworded it Let There Be Sunshine. Do check it now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both paras in Box office, it's a direct continuation
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct the "income tax department" redlink
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from my part. Good work. I can vouch for this once these are addressed. Good luck. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing in Filming, I think that sentence about signing Madhavan for Nala Damayanthi best fits in Legacy. Because it's about how he landed in a role in Nala Damayanthi through Anbe Sivam. Isn't that a legacy ? Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted to "Legacy" section as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support this for promotion. Good luck. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Let There Be Sunshine. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoa47

edit
  • For this part (Produced on a budget of ₹120 million), do you think that it would be helpful to provide a link for the currency for those unfamiliar with this region of the world and its economy?
Already done so in the infobox. Nevertheless, I have linked it as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clarification question about the following sentence (Rathod's voice in the film was dubbed by the singer Anuradha Sriram.). Do you mean that Sriram dubbed Rathod's voice throughout the entire film or just for certain portions? Do we know why they had voice dubbing? I was a little confused by this part.
Throughout the film as most actresses working in the south are north Indians who have little or no knowledge of Tamil. Sometimes their voices sound like Jean Hagen in Singin' in the Rain (Hansika Motwani is an example). Only some like Priyamani, Trisha, Samantha to name a few dub for themselves.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (When Kamal was en-route to Los Angeles from Toronto), I do not believe that "en-route" needs to be in italics.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (pined that Nallasivam was "akin to" street theatre artist Pralayan), I do not believe that the quote is necessary, and I think that you can paraphrase in your words here.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (who wanted the song to be sung in such a way that the protagonist is singing according to the situation he finds himself in), there are three variations of the word "song" in a very close proximity. I would revise at least one to avoid this (such as "to be performed in such a way).
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Critical response" subsection seems a little too disorganized for my own personal taste. I can see that the third paragraph is on the negative reviews for the film, but I do not see a cohesive topic or theme for the first and second paragraph. It would be helpful to have more structure for the first two paragraphs to avoid having it read like a random listing of critics and their opinions.
I've shuffled it a bit now Aoba47. Any changes to be made here? Please do tell me if so.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this article. It sounds like a very interesting film (I have not heard of it before doing this review to be honest). Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. Have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Very comprehensive, a few nitpicks before I supportJimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indian Panorama— do we need any clarification of what this section of the IFFA includes?
Indeed, so as to distinguish from the foreign films screened at the festival. This section is exclusively for Indian films.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • authorities at the Toronto Pearson International Airport, —I know from personal experience that, unusually, the US operates its own immigration desk at Pearson; perhaps make it clear that it's the US rather than the Canadian authorities doing the profiling?
Done. Kamal Haasan states them as simply "customs authorities" but there is a hint at the last line of the article where he says, "One can understand the country's anxiety after Spetember 11" referring to 9/11. So it must be the US then. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Siva is love" —effectively "God is Love". If this is the source of the article's title, why is it reversed as "Love Is God" in the translation of the Tamil title?
Haha, because "God is Love" literally translates into "Kadavule Anbu" or in this case "Sivame Anbu". Here, "Anbe Sivam" literally means "Love is God".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 94 is showing message "This video is unavailable"
  • I don't think the link to the film should be under the heading "Bibliography", particularly as it's the only item in the section – a bibliography is by definition a list, normally of books. Why not rename the section "Film"?

Otherwise, all sources look good and appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. I've resolved both your comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DWB

edit
  • There is a lot of duplicate links following the cast section. Since the cast are already linked in the Cast section it's not necessary to also link them in the production section.
  • I don't know if it's possible but I'd add an image of one or both main actors or the female actor who plays Bala to the cast section, just to stop it being a section dedicated to a bare list. If you want an idea how to do this, look at something like Interstellar (film).
  • It wouldn't stop be me supporting promotion, but in the article body it may be worth adding a dollar amount next to the rupee amounts. I can see you've added a note explaining that 1 dollar in 2003 was equal to about 45 rupees, but I think for your layman reader it's harder to understand what kind of figures we are dealing with. If you choose to add this, don't worry about doing it in the infobox. Again, if you don't want to do it, don't, it won't stop me supporting it.
  • Sources look fine and well archived! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have hopefully resolved your comments, Darkwarriorblake. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes Ssven. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Darkwarriorblake. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit
  • Do we have good sources (eh, better than some cheesy movie review website, I hope) for "Love Is God" as opposed to "Love is Shiva"? See from Google books: "Almost every large Siva temple in Tamilnadu has the words Anbe Sivam (Siva is love) prominently displayed on one, if not more, of its towers. For Sivanadiyars, the love of the lord is unmatchable but they can devote all their attention and love to him and serve him wholeheartedly. In addition to this, Sivanadiyars also serve those who, like themselves, are dedicated to the lord Siva." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the above quote, if "Anbe Sivam" is as culturally rich as the quote seems to suggest, do we need a separate article on the saying itself and its religious significance (and linked to this article by {{about}} atop the page)? Or would that be a section in another article? I personally would feel embarrassed, for example, if I knew that people trying to look up a very culturally or religiously significant concept could only find reference to a popular movie that is only indirectly related to the original saying or phrase... What do the nominators think?
  • Again given the above, see the text: "In Vasool Raja MBBS (2004), the character Vasool Raja.." Is this quote referring to the movie or the religious phrase. If it's the latter, the quote is completely irrelevant. If it's the former, I'm still not convinced the quote adds to the article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

edit
  • "The film was released on 15 January 2003 to positive reviews from critics, but underperformed at the box office. However, it is now regarded as a classic and a cult film in Tamil cinema." -- but and however are used back to back. Neutrality goes for a toss, sir. It made me feel as if you are concerned about the film's failure. Rephrase the lines, please.
Done. Tweaked and reworded as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the other is a scarred, deformed but witty socialist, Nallasivam, alias "Nalla"." -- scared, deformed and witty are not physical. The first two are physical while witty is mental. Why use but?
Done. Tweaked as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Nalla so he can deliver" -- "and Nalla has to deliver"
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nalla and Padayatchi's daughter Balasaraswathi, called Bala" -- Why say called Bala? You were using these inverted commas like Nallasivam, alias "Nalla".
Done. Removed inverted commas for all three.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Haasan was en-route to Los Angeles from Toronto, he was detained by the United States customs authorities at the Toronto Pearson International Airport, who suspected him of being a terrorist because of his surname, which he described as sounding "very Islamic". Haasan was left stranded at the airport until the authorities from the American Embassy at Toronto intervened and resolved the issue." -- Tell us how this had an impact on the film's production. Otherwise sir, I am afraid that it would be deemed an unnecessary addition.
Done. Valid point there. Removed the section.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basic plot of Anbe Sivam bears resemblance to the 1987 road film, Planes, Trains and Automobiles directed by John Hughes, which starred Steve Martin and John Candy in the lead roles. Haasan and Madhavan bear resemblance to the roles played by Candy and Martin's roles in that film, respectively." -- Whose opinion is that, sir? Yours?
Done. Tweaked and reworded as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all Lord Shiva can be Shiva for neutrality. Secondly, a case of over linking. Why sir, why?
Done. Tweaked and removed overlink as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before the end of 2002 so that they could enter the film into the 2002 awards list" -- 2002 repeated twice in the same line, sir. Why not annual awards list, sir?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haasan is enough for the mention in the Legacy section regarding Vasool Raja MBBS.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my comments have been duly resolved by the nominator. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 17:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Pavanjandhyala. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
Changed the captions.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Libro Los Viejos Abuelos Foto 68.png: Use is fine, but the license seems wrong to me - that image looks like a derivative of a painting and there is no indication of the license of the painting. Especially since the ALT text calls the painter "Diego Rivera" and it's not clear from the file page.
Replaced with another file which says the painting is by Diego Rivera. Hope this one is okay.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Anbe Sivam Portrait Still.png: Use seems fine as is most of the rationale, but I am not certain that it meets the "omission would be harmful to the understanding of the article topic" prong of WP:NFCC#8. Not sure about the caption, either.
It is quite so as people would like to know how the painting looks like to realise the way the protagonist indicates the atrocities committed by the antagonist. The same is also explained in the 4th paragraph of the "Themes and influences" section and I've expanded the "Purpose" sub-section of the image file. As for the caption, I've tweaked it, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Hope its okay now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather marginal. Are these atrocities a main point in the film? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, they are one of the main points in the film which is why the protagonist (Nallasivam) is against the antagonist (Padayatchi) in the first place. Padayatchi refuses to give his workers a raise, instead only offering them 910 Rupees, which by the then and today's Indian standards, is hardly enough for their survival. Padayatchi also uses corrupt means to run his business, especially through shady dealings with MNC's (Foreign Direct Investment) as he believes the profit from his foreign investment will be more than enough to make money at the cost of the local parties and his workforce. To bring these atrocities to light, Nallsivam uses this portrait to reveal to everyone about Padayatchi.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So very marginal. Has anyone else got opinions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the themes section does not discuss the painting enough to warrant the image. Ssven2, you could add more to the discussion of the painting from varying commentators on the significance of the motifs; it is an interesting picture and could use some elaboration. That said, I see little point in including the image for the painting if there wasn't/isn't any discussion on it. Hope this helps. VedantTalk 14:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the painting, Jo-Jo Eumerus.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most images have basic ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, forgot to thank you for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. So, thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

edit
  • Support. Just one comment on this, which will not affect my support, but that you should probably look at:
    • "advertisement filmmaker" (in there twice) is one of the least elegant pairings of words I've seen, and I'm not even sure there is such a thing (Google shows little enough reference) - possibly re-word?
Aside from that, all good - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. I have resolved your comment.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt

edit
  • Support I was also one of the peer reviewers, see here. My concerns re prose were addressed, and, though I am not familiar with Indian film beyond what I've reviewed, it seems otherwise to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2018 [9].

Mosaics of Delos

edit
Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mosaics of Delos might seem like an arcane, niche topic but in terms of surviving Greek mosaic artwork it is of prime importance. I created this article from scratch and have since brought it up to GA status. A peer review was also made, although I've decided only to implement a few suggestions from the reviewer there. Overall the article is well-written, stable, fully cited with a decent amount of reliable sources, and in my view the images are all meticulously well-placed, sufficiently relevant, and licensed appropriately. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of the images appear to be duplicative - for example, the House of the Trident section could easily lose at least one image if not two without impacting reader understanding
  • File:Delos_cubic_floor_mosaic.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Same with File:Delos_Theaterviertel_21.jpg, File:Delos_Theaterviertel_18.jpg, File:Delos_Theaterviertel_14.jpg, File:Delos_Haus_des_Dionysos_05.jpg, File:Delos_Haus_der_Delfine_03.jpg, File:The_House_of_the_Dolphins_(II)_(5182955988).jpg, File:Ancient_Delos.jpg, File:House_of_the_Lake,_Delos_01.jpg, File:House_of_the_Trident_02.jpg, File:House_of_the_Trident_06.jpg, File:House_Trident_Delos_13M204.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you and the peer reviewer both brought up the House of the Trident, I've decided to remove one image from that section that was admittedly rather repetitive. As for the other images needing "a tag for the original work", can you explain that, please? I have no idea what sort of tag this would be or what that would entail. Do you mean a second type of Public Domain license or something? Pericles of AthensTalk 01:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently these images have a tag representing the copyright of the photographer; they also need a public domain tag indicating the status of the original work - the mosaic, sculptural work, etc that is shown in the photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: thanks for clarifying! I have standardized the licensing for all images as requested, with the appropriate PD tags indicating the status of the original works. Kind regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

@Ceoil: hello! Take your time to review the article, there is no rush. I'm glad that you have enjoyed reading it thus far. --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any gripes to add more than whats been resolved above and below. This is a very nice addition, and glad to Support. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: fantastic! Thanks for the support and once again I'm glad you liked the article so much. Kindest regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

edit

I like this a lot. Short and sweet, and nicely illustrated. Some comments:

  • and subsequently abrupt decline -> and the subsequent abrupt decline?
  • eight millimeters square -> I think "eight by eight millimeters" would help avoid the classic ambiguity that the square notation creates
  • not sure the chip-pavement link is particularly helpful
  • fifty-five -> 55; twenty-five -> 25
  • and appear in mosaics -> appears
  • Although the three major -> although twice in quick succession
  • weren't -> contractions are to be avoided
  • Like the House of the Lake, -> since this has not been introduced yet, this statement doesn't help the reader much. I'd leave it out.
  • ISBN numbers should all be in same format (seems ISBN 13 is becoming de facto standard at FAC). Include hyphens.

Questions:

  • is anything known about where the materials (mostly marble) came from? Locally sourced?
  • how did they get the different colors marble?
  • is it known why these mosaics have survived so well?

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it! To the best of my abilities I have tried to amend the article according to your suggestions. However, I have not changed "subsequently abrupt decline" to "subsequent abrupt decline", because I believe that "subsequently", an adverb, is a modifier for abrupt, an adjective. Adverbs are used to modify both verbs and adjectives. I'm almost certain that the sentence as it stands now is grammatically correct. Also, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to fiddle with the ISBN numbers. For instance, I checked on the very first source, Brecoulaki's 2016 book chapter "Greek Interior Decoration" in A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, which does not include hyphens in its own ISBN number. I'm not sure if adding hyphens would screw things up or not. Perhaps you know more about this than I do, but I will refrain from touching this. You are more than welcome to edit it if you like. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for your questions, they are good ones, but I'm not sure if I can adequately answer all of them. I'm not sure about the quarries and places where the materials were gathered for making the mosaics; I don't think I've come across a single article or book that explains this or even mentions it. I can look around, but I can't promise to find information on quarry sites for these materials or the common methods for gathering them.
As for the second question, notice how the article says "white marble" and not any other kind. The rich varieties of color in the mosaics are therefore achieved through the use of pottery fragments, glass, pebbles, and other materials that comprise the tesserae. Although I do provide a link for it for anyone who's curious about this material, should I perhaps also define what tesserae is in the article? Notice how in the "House of the Dionysos" section I state that "The tesserae materials, made of glass, faience, terracotta and natural stones, are fashioned into pieces measuring roughly one millimeter square, allowing for sharp detail and an elaborate color scheme." I wonder: should the materials that are found in tesserae be mentioned further up, in the "composition" sub-section? I don't want to be too repetitive about it, though. --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"is it known why these mosaics have survived so well?" This is a fantastic question, although I don't think I can answer it right away. I have a suspicion it has something to do with the island of Delos virtually being abandoned until modern times. As the article Delos explains, it didn't have enough local natural resources to sustain a sizable population of its own, relying on outside imports for food and other necessities. Once the island was bypassed as a major trade route and suffered damaging raids by the armies of Pontus, the Romans basically deserted the place. I don't think I've seen a book or article that has explicitly stated that this is why the mosaics have survived so well, but it seems to be the case. For instance, Roman artwork in various other locales have been well-preserved throughout the ages either because of geographic isolation, being buried in a tomb or mausoleum, or because institutions like the Catholic Church decided to preserve architecture (and the artwork tied to them) by converting buildings into churches. Antiquarianism during the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance perhaps played a role as well, but as far as I know this didn't apply to mosaics, only to more vaunted pieces of artwork such as busts and statues that could be easily transported from one private collection to another. --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. With the caveat that I have no knowledge in the field, I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: excellent! Once again, thanks for reviewing the article and providing suggestions for areas needing improvement. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 23:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • General: page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens, per MoS
  • Ref 47: I don't really see the purpose of including this information. Is the translation in the source? If not, it's a bit of editorial OR and shouldn't be here.
  • Ref 57: I suggest you replace this with a short citation, since the link is given in the entry within the References list.
  • References list: Dunbabin, Joyce, Westgate 2000 and Westgate 2007 are all behind paywalls, so you should add (subscription required) to each entry.
  • The link in Hardiman presently goes to an irrelevant page.

Otherwise, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: hello! Thanks for reviewing the sources. I have removed Ref 47 about the French translation per your suggestion. I've also shortened the citation for Ref 57 (now 56), added the "subscription" tag to the sources Dunbabin, Joyce, and Westgate 2000 and 2007, and provided a different URL for Hardiman (from archive.org instead of Google Books) that goes straight to the relevant page number for his book chapter. However, I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion regarding ndashes versus hyphens. From what I can tell, I have done nothing manually in this article in regards to page ranges. I have only used the Harvard citation template. I'm not even sure how to tinker with the Harvard citation template in order to force it to have ndashes instead of hyphens. If you have some sort of solution for this I'd be happy to implement it, but I'm not going to remove the Harvard citation template and format simply because it cannot currently accommodate ndashes. The Harvard citation format is the chosen one for this article and I don't think we should go about changing that to satisfy some other issue. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 04:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you allow me to jump in: all Brianboulton meant, I believe, was to replace the "-" character in the "pages=" with the "–". I just made those changes. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: thank you very much for taking the initiative! Are there any more outstanding issues that need resolving at this point? --Pericles of AthensTalk 00:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now...

  • Despite the invasions by Pontus, the island was only gradually abandoned after Rome secured a more direct trading link with the Orient, superseding Delos as a pivotal midway point for trade leading to the East - what superceded Delos? Presumably it wasn't Rome or the Orient....
  • The mosaics of Delos are a significant corpus of ancient Greek mosaic art. - what extra meaning is gained by using "corpus" over (say) "body"?
  • On reading it, I don't get a sense from reading the lead as to why/how mosaics of Delos are especially significant in the context of Ancient Greek mosaics in general. Possibly doesn't help that we don't have a specific article on Ancient Greek mosaics in general - only mosaics and Ancient Greek art. The Significance section helps a little, but I wonder if there is anything more that can be added.

Overall, though, a nice read and seems comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. Per your suggestions, I have reworded the bit about Delos being superseded as a conduit for trade to the East and replaced the word "corpus" with "body" in the introduction. As for the lead section not conveying the significance of the Delos mosaics in regards to the overall surviving body of Greek mosaic artwork, I worded things very tersely in order to avoid having a large, wordy lead for such a small article. In addition to the statement "Among Hellenistic Greek archaeological sites, Delos contains one of the highest concentrations of surviving mosaic artworks", what else do you think I should add here to emphasize this point? Perhaps the statement appearing later in the article that roughly half of all surviving tessellated Greek mosaics from the Hellenistic period come from Delos? That would probably hammer the point home, so to speak. --Pericles of AthensTalk 01:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - all good now. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: thank you for your support! Your suggestions also led to a significant improvement of the lead section. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: A few minor issues before promotion. The duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Also, the references are not currently in ascending numerical order (e.g. "...and can be found at other sites such as Arsameia (albeit arranged in the opposite direction).[24][12]" instead of [12][24]); some editors prefer to place the references in order of relevance or importance, which is fine, but I'd like to check whether this was intentional or not. Finally, it might be worth looking to see if we can remove the "however"s (see WP:HOWEVER). Once these minor points are addressed, I think we can promote. Sarastro (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: hello! Thanks for offering your suggestions. Per your advice, I have reordered inline citations so that they appear in numerical order. I have also removed all duplicate links that were contained within the body of the article only. I did not remove duplicate links in image captions or if they appeared once before in the lead section, in accordance with the standards outlined in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Duplicate_and_repeat_links. As for your suggestion that we remove "however"s per WP:HOWEVER, I am quite honestly confused as to why you raised this issue. After reading the essay at WP:HOWEVER and skimming my article for such occurrences, I can't think of a single instance where my article is guilty of presenting itself in "thread mode" (i.e. having repetitive counterpoints due to partisan editing, necessitating separate sections or paragraphs for competing if not irreconcilable views). As far as I can tell the article simply contains the word "however" in four different locations. That's hardly a sin worth mentioning, especially since it is an acceptable conjunction for encyclopedias. Dare I cite various instances of the word "however" in Britannica as evidence for my case? Even Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Semicolon before "however" makes it clear that the word "however" can be used in a sentence so long as it is done with proper grammar, syntax, and punctuation. In either case, thank you for trying to speed up the nomination process for this article. I hope you find my recent edits to be sufficient enough. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's possible that someone will raise the "however" issue at another time, but it's not part of the FA criteria and I will be promoting shortly. Sarastro (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2018 [10].

Family Trade

edit
Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I present Family Trade, a short-lived American reality series that aired eight episodes on the Game Show Network in 2013, chronicling the daily activities of a GMC/Ford used car dealership in Middlebury, Vermont that employs the barter system in many sales of their vehicles. I have no idea why I'm so fascinated with this show; it's probably due to my affinity for a similar show, Pawn Stars (speaking of which, if the show had aired on the History Channel instead, I'm fairly confident it would have had a longer run). I've spent a long time extensively researching this show as best I can (even snapping a photo of the G. Stone Motors dealership while passing through Middlebury this summer), and I now believe it is the most extensive summary of the show one can find on the Internet. Considering this is what the article looked like when I began my work, to quote Gardner Stone himself, "I'm proud of what we have built." I think this final step will help polish the article even further and bring forward any final improvements. As always, all feedback is welcomed and greatly appreciated. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • For this sentence (The dealership is operated by its founder, Gardner Stone, his son and daughter, Todd and Darcy, and General Manager Travis Romano.) in the lead, I would substitute “business” for “dealership” as the word “dealership” was used in the prior sentence.
  • I would include information on the show’s critical reception in the lead, and possibly a short part on its ratings.
  • In the “Format” section, please use Gardner’s full name on the first use and provide a short descriptive phrase to identify him to the reader as this is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
  • I am not sure about the following phrasing (to be made that might otherwise end up in vain), particularly the “otherwise end up in vain” part.
  • For this sentence (The customers then negotiate the value of their items, usually with Gardner, but occasionally also with other members of the shop's staff.), I do not believe you need “then”.
  • Provide a descriptive phrase to introduce Darcy and Travis when you first introduce them. Also, I would use Travis’ full name when you first reference him.
  • I would identify that Eli Frankel is an executive from Lionsgate.
  • I would change (ordering a pilot show) to (ordering a pilot episode).
  • For this part (GSN then proceeded to order eight episodes of the series on August 9, 2012.), I do not think you need “then”.
  • I would link Middlebury on its first use in the body of the article.

Great work with this article. My review is focused on the prose. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your review. I have addressed all your comments. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

Very little to raise here. Ref 5: I imagine that "Addison County Independent" is a printed source and should therefore be italicised. Otherwise.sources look in good order and of the requisite reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I have amended this issue. Thank you for your review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MWright96
  • Wikilink upfronts to Upfront (advertising) the first time it is mentioned
  • "however, on February 1, GSN pushed the premiere date back a week to March 12." - I am assuming that no reasons were given for the change of debut, and if so, it should be clear
  • Consider archiving the remaining sources that have not already been archived.

Overall the majority of the prose is easy to read and engaging. Just the minor issues from me. MWright96 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Archived the majority of the remaining links, fixed the two minor prose issues. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my queries Ben. Nothing else from me so I am more than happy to lend my support for this article to be promoted. Good work! MWright96 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AmericanAir88

edit

I will 100% support when these are fixed AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you elaborate more on the reselling part at the end of "Format"?
  • "His son Todd also claims" is a Weasel Word as it connects with "might". Rewording would be a good solution.
  • In format, you do not need to mention that Travis is the general manager as it is stated in the lead.
  • The cast section should go above the production
  • "Filming for the eight episodes began September 1, lasting around five or six weeks." Awkward Sentence
@Bcschneider53: Perfect

Support AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: Unless I've missed it, I think we still need an image review. Also, I'm not sure we've had sufficient depth of review yet. Aoba47 has gone into some detail on prose, but I'm not sure we are covered on FA criteria 1b, 1c and 1d. Therefore, I'd like a few more eyes on this. Sarastro (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thank you for the update. I pinged Carbrera a couple days ago, so hopefully that review will come in soon. Perhaps Mike Christie and Jo-Jo Eumerus could provide another prose and image review respectively? (Please don't feel obligated, it's just, since you've reviewed my other GSN FAs, I think you'd be well-suited to look at this one too.) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Carbrera
  • The prose looks excellent; I can't find anything to improve on or suggest
  • Everything in the infobox seems to be supported by citations in the article, with the exception of the episode lengths; I think you should add this in the article's body somewhere – perhaps under 'Production'?
  • I believe a comma should be added after "network's upfronts on March 21, 2012" as you continue the sentence with additional text after stating a date
  • From my history with television series and episode guides, generally the line color matches the color used for the header above; could this be corrected?
Bcschneider53 – This looks very good. I'd be glad to take another look after you address my minor suggestions above. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Carbrera: Thank you for your comments; I have amended the minor issues. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your swift changes. I can fully support this one. Carbrera (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Image review
ALT text is there, although you may want to describe the image content a bit more than the image topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Many thanks. I have expanded the ALT text for both images. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Reywas92

Can you provide some more details in the episode summaries? For a show that probably isn't on streaming or DVD (or is it?), I'd really prefer more information than a TV guide listing. Reywas92Talk 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I have made a couple of minor additions, but only based on my memory from nearly five years ago. Unfortunately, the series is not available anywhere on DVD or otherwise as far as I know (though if it is and you find it, please let me know!), and I have researched this show extensively. Furthermore, I don't want to risk being overly-detalied either. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit
  • stating this on the dealership's website and on an episode of the show: why do we need to say this in the article?
  • Country music artist Jamie Lee Thurston writes a jingle for the dealership (which would later become the show's theme song) Since this is the last episode, "later" is confusing. I assume that the explanation is that the events in the last episode take place before the first episode is aired, but it would be nice to have this clearer.

That's all I can see for prose. I have not checked for other sources so I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for status update

edit

@Sarastro1 and Ian Rose: We have received five supporting reviews now complete with an image and source check. Would either of you mind giving this nomination a run-through to see if it's ready for promotion? Many thanks in advance for all you do here at FAC. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: I don't think we are there yet. A few issues with the first part of the main body:

  • "The series features customers bringing in anything they believe is resalable[1] within reason to the dealership to help cover the cost of a new or used vehicle (including pigs, maple syrup, and collectable dolls)": Given that this is the first sentence of the main body, we need to explain what the series is and what the dealership is. "within reason" doesn't seem to be in the source given and is very vague. Also, should we not start with more context? Who commissioned the series? When? Why? And maybe start with a little on the dealership itself rather than just stating it was part of a series. So many issues in the first sentence worries me a little. Sarastro (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I think the start of the main body needs to fully set the scene for what is going on. As it, we kind of jump in and assume the reader knows what is going on. It would seem to make more sense to give the background first. Sarastro (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: I just noticed Pawn Stars (currently a B-class article for a similar series) uses a section combining the two areas ("production history and format"). Should we do a similar thing here? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now, and just made a couple of minor alterations myself. I will promote shortly. Sarastro (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2018 [11].

ZETA (fusion reactor)

edit
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-FACing this article. It stalled out after two supports about a month ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ZETA fusion reactor built in the UK in the 1950s, the largest and most powerful reactor of its era. ZETA is representative of the fusion field's history - a theoretical breakthrough suggests a new route to fusion power, a reactor is built to take advantage of the design, it proves not to work, and fixing it requires a larger and more expensive design. Unlike other examples, however, ZETA had the rather unfortunate problem of announcing it was successful in very public fashion in newspapers around the world and then having to retract the claim. In spite of this embarrassing event, ZETA went on to have a very productive career and provided several important advances in the field.

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 27: Publisher?
It's a patent, I don't think it has a publisher, per se.
I tweaked that footnote to make the nature of the reference more clear. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50: Needs ndash in page range, not hyphen
Looks like XOR did this edit.
  • Ref 109: Is the source here the book, in which case a page reference should be given? If the source is this online article, this should be clarified and the ISBN removed.
Good point, I have changed this to a web ref.
  • Ref 118: The source seems devoid of information that supports the text
The cite is connected to his win on the JCM for the the ballooning transformation and more broadly his work in fusion. The body mentions "played a major part in developing the "ballooning transformation" for toroidal plasmas".
  • Ref 121: I'm getting repeated timeouts here
I tried three times, once last night and twice this morning, with no problem. It's archive.org, I'm not sure it will ever be speedy, but I suspect your problem is because your local server hadn't accessed it recently and didn't have it cached. It might work fine now.
The original link timed out for me, so I changed it to the archive.org copy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: The Hill book is wrongly titled.
I cut and pasted the title from the Google page, can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made that fix here (somehow, "atomic" had become "nuclear"). XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these points, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started addressing these points. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by IP

edit

What's a "shot?" You use this in quotes three times. Use a real word, please. I think, from starting to read the article, some of the jargon is used incorrectly, shortened phrases that slightly change meaning, mixing up somewhat close technical words. I found the article tricky to read because of this. I started editing, but there's too much. I enjoy reading FAs. I would not read this. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2: I added an explanation of "shot". Can you be more specific on the others? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

edit

I already reviewed this and the issues I raised have been fixed. Nice article. Support. --John (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by XOR'easter

edit

There are two redlinks, colliding beam fusion and ballooning transformation, which create a slight impression that the coverage is not comprehensive. The former is not so bad, because the name is rather self-explanatory, but the latter is awkward:

Taylor went on to study the ballooning transformation, solving a mystery found in high-performance toroidal machines.

This is the kind of vague sentence I'm used to seeing in forgettably sub-par science popularizations. Scientist solves mystery, film at 11. If this sentence could be reworked to be a little more specific about what the "ballooning transformation" is, that would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Mike Christie

edit

I supported this last time and am happy to do so again. Hawkeye7, you supported it last time so I hope you don't mind a ping. Maury, if this doesn't get promoted, ping me when you renominate it and I'll be glad to support it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

edit

I reviewed this article last time and the issues I raised have been fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Has this had an image review? I see that the previous FAC had an image review. If the images are unchanged, I think that would suffice. Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No additional images have been added since my image review in July last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2018 [12].

Planet of the Apes

edit
Nominator(s): Cúchullain t/c 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the film and media franchise Planet of the Apes, which has included a number of historically significant films since the 1960s. I've substantially rewritten it over the course of 3 years using all of major sources I've been able to identify, most importantly the two book-length treatments. I believe it covers the topic comprehensively, without going into excessive detail on the individual installments, and at long last think the prose and content are FA caliber.Cúchullain t/c 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 69 - Rotten Tomatoes: the format here is different from what you show for 165, 167, 169 and others. Citations to the same source should be formatted consistently.
  • Ref 71: Same point, re Box Office Mojo – compare this with refs 158 to 162
  • Ref 77: What makes this a reliable source?
  • We discussed it at WP:RSN here (the site in question used to named badassdigest.com). The consensus seemed to be that it was acceptable based on the author. However, it could be removed as it doesn't cover anything that isn't in the (much stronger) Linder and Fordham & Bond sources.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 83: Is the source /Film, as here, or SlashFilm, per ref 99?
  • Ref 86: Harvard error
  • Refs 92, 93 and others: Another inconsistency: until this point, with online sources, you have formatted both website and publisher. Here, and in several other cases, you show only the website. You need to be consistent - the publisher should always be shown.
  • Ref 110: unformatted url
  • Ref 111: dead link ("All Game is no more...")
  • Refs 116, 117 and 119 all seem to link to the wrong site
  • Ref 122 shows a different title from the source - is this the correct link?
  • Ref 132: What makes this a reliable source?
  • Ref 163: Dead, gives 404 message
  • Refs 166, 168, 170, 172 and 174 are all unformatted urls
  • Ref 178: lacks publisher and retrieval date
  • In your list of sources, you don't need to give retrieval dates for google links. The book itself is the source.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Brianboulton. I believe I've fixed all the issues you've identified.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

No idea why this has sat here for a month with no input. I don't have time to do a detailed review right now but hopefully will later in the week. Just from a quick look, the lead seems a little sparse for an article of this length, and you're misusing "between" in between 1970 and 1973 ("between" implies after 1970 but before 73; suggest replacing it with "from" and "to"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HJ Mitchell. I've changed "between" to "from". The intro is brief, but I never could think of anything else that the article covers that should be in the intro, but I'll of course incorporate anything else that's suggested.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: "Between Year X and Year Y" is perfectly good English for circumstances where you want to indicate the inclusion of the named years and is, indeed, the prevailing usage for that meaning in American English. I wouldn't dare make a claim about what prevails in British English style, but it certainly appears in many UK-published texts, some of which, in fact, I've sub-edited (that's BE for "copyedited"). DocKino (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could expand on the themes in the third lead para eg The films are apocalyptic and dystopian, and portray the era's tensions...' Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been wanting to review this for a while, but I'm not familiar with the series beyond the first film and the most recent ones, so I wanted to wait until someone more familiar with the series had finished a review. Feel free to ping me when it happens, I don't think this nomination should be archived. I know a King Kong/Planet of the Apes crossover comic either exists or is in the works[14], perhaps worth a mention... FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planet of the Apes/archive1 is ready for your attention, FunkMonk. DocKino (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I can add that to the comics section.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got time for a proper look through now:

  • However, Boulle rejected the science fiction label for his work "However" is frowned upon at FAC and is a widely misused word. I count nine uses of it here, which is certainly too many in ~6k words of prose. Normally such a strong contradiction isn't necessary and "but" or "though" or "nonetheless" works better.
  • Fox greenlit another film "Greenlit" is a bit informal and chatty for an encyclopaedia; maybe go with "approved" or "commissioned"?
  • Might be worth explaining "development hell" very briefly in the prose rather than relying on the link.
  • Notably, executive Dylan Sellers insisted Telling a reader that something is notable in Wikipedia's voice is arguably editorialising
  • received mixed reviews, with critics generally believing Using "with" to join two clauses like that is sloppy, though it's a very common prose flaw
  • release for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC in fall 2017 MOS:SEASON; also, as we're almost at the end of 2017, is there an update on this?

I'm only really looking at the prose, but I'm not fining a lot to criticise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harry, I'll make those changes tomorrow. Got delayed by the holidays.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are all done. "Howevers" are reduced to 1 or 2 uses.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

edit

Read this through over x-mass, found it very well written. Minor commtents to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is excellent overall, and more than comprehensive on the various canonical spin offs, I think the thematic overview is lacking. In particular, I was looking to read more about how it built up its vision of a post nuclear holocaust, the films being overwhelmingly dystopian, and how that vision evolved over time. The current revision seems to skim over this unifying aspect, and would be fascinated to see more on this. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I can take another stab at it. I've been reviewing the sources I have, and while they discuss the themes pretty comprehensively, I'm not finding a lot that talk about the post-apocalyptic or dystopian aspects per se (as opposed, to, say, the Cold War theme). But I'll keep looking through my sources.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well anyway, its a Support from me - its a fine article, tightly written, with most of the important stuff covered. Well done indeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil - I'm planning one addition from Green that touches on the apocalyptic presentation, probably not exactly what you had in mind, but hopefully will help. I'll add it shortly.--Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • Please include ALT text for the image in the infobox. All of the images in the article actually need ALT text so please add these parts.
  • For the “La Planète des Singes” section, do you think that it would be better to use the image of the first edition of book, which is used in the article on the book itself). This is more of a stylistic preference so it is really up to you, but I am just curious on why you use an image of the first American edition rather than the first edition of the book overall.
  • Well, the image isn't free, it's fair use and only marked for use in the novel's article. Someone with more knowledge about fair use requirements will have to decide this one.
  • I'm a strong fair use advocate, but I believe you've made the right choice, Cúchullain. This is an article about the franchise and you've appropriately identified the franchise as American—that framework really does tip the scales toward the free US cover rather than the (yes, foundational) un-free French cover. For sure, in a free-for-all space, the original cover would be preferable. But given a choice of two at-least-good alternatives (and both of these are no less than good), we generally do side with the free. DocKino (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put a short descriptive phrase in front of Xan Fielding to identify him for an uninformed reader.
  • I am not certain about the phrasing in this sentence (John Chambers created the innovative makeup effects.) Who considers the makeup “innovative”? I think so attribution here would be helpful to prevent potential POV issues.

  • For this part (In fall 1968 the producers hired), add a comma after “fall 1968”.
  • I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of Frederick S. Clarke.
  • Caesar is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • I had him linked once in the first mention, and again in the section on Rise of the Planet of the Apes in case readers couldn't keep track of which one he was (which would be understandable). But this can be removed if it's not seen as helpful.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the “War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)” subsection, I would suggest combining the second paragraph with the first as I do not see a reason for such a short (i.e. one sentence) paragraph.
  • Do you think that the “War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)” subsection could be expanded? It seems rather short compared to the other subsections.
  • I would update this sentence (Titled Planet of the Apes: Last Frontier, the game is set for release for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC in fall 2017.), as I think that the game has been released, at least according to the article on the game.
  • Could you possibly expand on these sentences (Several critics have written that the reboot films downplay the original series' subject matter of race, generally arguing that this is to their detriment. Others, however, write that the films incorporate racial in subtler ways.). It seems like a rather short paragraph, and it would be helpful to expand on these ideas if possible.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it a bit, I hope it makes sense. I may polish the wording once it has a chance to settle in my brain a bit. Apologies for the delay in responding, I was working on that last edit for several days unsaved and wanted to get all of them in before responding. Thanks for your comments, Aoba47.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DocKino

edit

I'm conducting a thorough copyedit of the article, though frankly it's already in good shape prose-wise. In terms of substance, I've been able to efficiently resolve almost all of the very few issues I've come across. Here is one I couldn't:

  • In the "Planet of the Apes TV series" section, we read, "The episodes portray Virdon, Burke, and Galen as they look for answers, aid downtrodden humans and apes, and avoid the authorities." What is it "they look for answers to"? No mystery has been established in the preceding lines, so readers won't know how to interpret this phrase. Are they looking for answers, perhaps, to how apes became intelligent? To how they subjugated humans? To how they (Virdon and Burke) passed through a time warp? Or to something else entirely? If there are multiple primary mysteries, their addition may call for the current sentence to be broken into two. That's fine; the article is tight—there are no worries about length if something needs to expand a bit. DocKino (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's a holdover from a longer sentence that no longer makes sense. They're mainly looking for a way home, but there are a few mysteries that are covered (the show wasn't on very long by 70's standards). I've changed it to "search for a way home".--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here's what I would view as a worthwhile addition:

  • I'd been thinking the War for the Planet of the Apes section felt a little cursory compared to the others. And then I noticed that, according to the metrics represented in the "Critical and public response" table at the bottom of the article, it's the best-reviewed movie in the entire history of the franchise. I believe that definitely merits a sentence in the narrative. DocKino (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find a secondary source that specifically says that. I wouldn't trust Rotten Tomatoes to compare it to the 1968 Planet, there will be many contemporary reviews that have been missed.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on Rotten Tomatoes. A search for a secondary source is it worth it, I think. I'll nose around as well. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a good-quality source making the claim is not identified (I found this, but don't love it) . . . it may simply be too soon for a quality secondary source to have appeared . . . I still believe the article doesn't quite accurately capture at present the relative acclamation War has received. At the moment, the original "earned rave reviews", Dawn "was met with critical acclaim", while War gets only a, yes, positive but more muted list of things critics "praised". Again, given the evidence of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (as well as, anecdotally, what I can see of the intensity of praise it's gotten from leading reviewers such as Peter Travers (here) and A. O. Scott (here; indeed, Scott put it in his top 10 of the year), I think that balance needs to be restruck. DocKino (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a line saying it received widespread critical acclaim, which I think is fair considering what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic say. I'm a bit reluctant to add much more speaking to critical consensus without a good source saying that. Unfortunately both War and Dawn are too recent to have been covered in the book-length sources, but I fully expect them to be at some point.--Cúchullain t/c 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gave it a tweak for variation in the prose. Resolved. DocKino (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • The section on the original film, Planet of the Apes (1968), states it "br[oke] contemporary box office records." I checked a hard-copy source readily at hand, which shows that it was the seventh-biggest box office earner in the North American market in 1968, That's (a) a lot more informative than than the very general "breaking contemporary box office records." My source is old. You should find a recent one you're comfortable with and include the datum. Also (b) it raises the question, What box office records did it break? Perhaps it was the highest-earning science-fiction film to date? If so, that specific information should definitely be added—along with the fact that this record (if it was a record) was soon shattered by 2001: A Space Odyssey, which opened just two months later. DocKino (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this wording based on the two main sources.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) section states that the film "received poor reviews from critics, who regard it as the weakest of the five films". As I was considering editing that to "...the weakest of the five films in the original series" for specificity, it occurred to me that it would be more informative in the long view (given the metrics in the "Critical and public response" table) to go with "...the weakest film in the entire history of the franchise." What do you think? DocKino (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the quoted book predates the reboot movies, so I don't know if we can use it for that. It's definitely true that it's virtually always ranked at the bottom in modern sources that rank the films, but I haven't come across a source that speaks to a critical consensus about its place across the entire film series.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Resolved. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Comics" section mentions a Malibu comic: the "Planet prequel Planet of the Apes: Sins of the Fathers". The immediately preceding sentence lists three different comic series whose titles begin with Planet. My best guess is that what you meant to indicate is that this one-shot comic was conceived as a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes film. But I shouldn't have to guess and our readers definitely shouldn't have to. Please spell out what Sins of the Fathers is a prequel to; I'll be happy to provide any warranted copyediting once you've done so. DocKino (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I've hopefully made it clear.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see an edit from you at the relevant point, so I've proposed one. See if that works. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, guess it didn't save. I made a minor adjustment to your edit.--Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple budget discrepancies to address:
(i) Beneath: narrative—$3.4 million; "Box office performance" table—$4.67 million
(ii) Escape: narrative—$2.5 million; "Box office performance" table—$2.06 million
(iii) Battle: narrative—$1.2 million; "Box office performance" table—$1.71 million
(iv) Dawn: narrative—$170 million; "Box office performance" table—$235 million (a difference of $65 million, almost real money...) DocKino (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hate that damn table. The numbers weren't backed up by the source given, it serious looks like someone just made them up. I've corrected it now.--Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit complete. All substantive queries resolved. Very happy to support this fine media franchise article. DocKino (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review - since this already has three supports, here's an image review. The sourcing and licensing looks fine for most of the images, but this one seems to have a somewhat iffy rationale for why it's PD:[15] I have brought it up on Commons:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: HJ Mitchell do you have anything further to add here? If not, this may be good to go. Sarastro (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ending spotcheck of sources -- recusing coord duties, as a bit of a fan of the franchise (initially through TV screenings, not quite old enough to have seen the original series at the movies!) I wanted to catch this before it closed...

  • Prose-wise, most of the heavy lifting seems to have been done earlier so my habitual copyedit was fairly minor, but of course let me know if you disagree with anything.
  • Re. structure and comprehensiveness, I found this a mercifully succinct and logical presentation of the franchise history in its many incarnations, but the key points I'd expect to find are there, so well done.
  • I'll take Brian's source review as read, and having walked through the image licenses myself I don't have anything to add to FunkMonk's review.
  • One action I'd ask of you is to check the duplicate links and see if they're all necessary -- this script highlights the instances.
  • Although none of the claims in the article struck me as suspect based on my knowledge of the franchise, I'd like to do a quick spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we close...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck -- a bit handicapped by the number of book sources but what I found online didn't ring alarm bells:

  • FN6b -- okay.
  • FN11a/b -- okay.
  • FN15 -- okay.
  • FN132 -- okay.
  • FN138a -- okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given that Ian has supported and done the spot check, I think we are good to go for this now. If Harry has any further points, I'm sure these could be addressed on the talk page. Just a few other minor issues. The Andy Serkis image is the only one without alt text; for consistency it probably should have. Also, as Ian mentions, someone should check the duplinks. However, given the length of time this has been open, I see no need to delay any further and will promote now. Sarastro (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 [17].

Neferefre

edit
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Neferefre a short lived pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the mid 25th century BC. There is nothing special about his reign, however his unexpected death meant two important things. First, it caused a bit of turmoil in the dynastic succession, and second his pyramid and mortuary temple were far from finished. Because of this, the pyramid was left relatively unscathed by grave robers, allowing us to uncover more statues of Neferefre than of any other king of the Fifth Dynasty. In addition, his mummy survived the centuries and reached us, showing that he died in his youth.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I don't know what to do here. Should I remove the pic altogether?Iry-Hor (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absent further details about its copyright situation, that would be safest. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Ok, would this alternative picture be acceptable copyright-wise ? Iry-Hor (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NikkimariaI was wondering: did you know that you could click on the [show] button on the right of "Royal titulary" in the infobox? It seems many people miss this altogether, so I am doing a kind of poll to check whether the infobox needs a redesign on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

I think two occurrences of "plateform" should probably be "platform", but I wasn't confident enough to go in and change them. That apart, I found this an absorbing article: easy to read, well and widely sourced, splendidly illustrated, and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. I always enjoy Ivry-Hor's articles, and one of these days I may even stop mis-reading "Shepseskare" as "Shakespeare", but that's just my problem ("Old, Master Shallow!"). This is well up to I-H's standard, and I am very happy to support. Tim riley talk 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim riley! About the "plateform", you were right, the Oxford English dictionnary writes "platform" with no e. I was once more betrayed by my French mother tongue it seems. That said, I was wondering: did you know that you could click on the [show] button on the right of "Royal titulary" in the infobox? It seems many people miss this altogether, so I am doing a kind of poll to check whether the infobox needs a redesign on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't spot the button, and it would be a pity to miss such excellent supplementary material. Perhaps the info-box setting should default to "show", with the button allowing readers to collapse the sub-box if they wish. Happy to add my two Euros-worth at any discussion you initiate, if wanted. Please feel free to ping me. Tim riley talk 19:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Very comprehensive and readable, a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • primeval mound— At first I thought this was a slip for "primitive". Although it is eventually explained, it looks odd as it stands in the lead. Perhaps a note here, or avoid the term until it is clarified
I have added a wikilink to the Benben the primeval mound in Egyptian mythology. In addition, a short explanation is now given in the lead. Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likely" is overused, there are other words for expressing probability
Damn! I agree, there was tons of "likely". I have removed most, thanks for noticing this! Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple references should be in numerical order, there are numerous places where you haven't done that, eg queen Khentkaus II.[35][3][5]
Fixed everywhere I could see it in the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • however, thereby—yuk, lose the "however"
Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this addresses your concerns Jimfbleak!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good now, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

edit
Most interesting and well-done. I've read this with the eye of an outsider, which is what most readers of the encyclopedia would be, making 20 or so small edits here as I went. Please revert any you think are misguided. Here are another 20 suggestions or questions, none posing any great difficulty.
Lead
  • ¶4 "Neferefre benefited from a funerary cult..." – Link funerary cult?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶4 "This cult took place..." – Maybe "Cult rituals" rather than "this cult"?
Nice suggestion! Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • To eliminate repetition, delete the word "sources" from the two subheads in this section?
Done good point.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporaneous
  • ¶1 "to witness a very short reign" – Replace "witness" with "suggest"? Or "imply"?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "...at a time when it has not yet been identified..." – Maybe "at a time not identified by earlier sources"?
Actually there was a mistake in the tense I used. I meant "at a time when it had not yet been identified", that is the sources discovered in Abusir indicated the existence of Neferefre's pyramid complex before it could be located by archaeologists. I put the version with "had".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Historical sources
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parents and siblings
  • ¶ "...whose filiation is suggested by..." – Link filiation?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consort and children
  • ¶1 "Late in this year however, the mastaba..." – Link mastaba?
Done very well spotted.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accession to the throne
  • ¶2 "who is responsible for the archaeological excavations of the Fifth Dynasty royal necropolis of Abusir since 1976." – Should that be "has been" rather than "is"?
Done. Since I am not a native speaker, I will follow your opinion on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reign duration
  • ¶2 Unlink "mastaba" from the direct quotation since it should be linked on first use in the "Consort and children" section?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 I'd be inclined to merge this one-sentence orphan paragraph with the short paragraph above it.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mortuary temple
  • ¶2 "Magazines for the offerings..." – Link magazine or add (storage places) in parentheses after "Magazines"?
Done I have replaced by "storage room", because it seems few people might know the meaning of "magazine" as storage place.
Mummy of Neferefre
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funerary cult
  • "This also shows that vast agricultural resources..." – Slightly smoother at "Toward this end, vast agricultural resources..."?
I am sorry I don't understand what you mean here? The "This" in 'This also shows" refers to the fact that "no less than 130 bulls were sacrificed" indicated one sentence earlier. In this context I don't understand "Toward this end"?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. The intervening sentence about the priests made it unclear to me what "This" referred to. I was thinking that it might refer to the feeding of the priests. I think you could eliminate any ambiguity by substituting "This number" for "This". Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Concise alt text would be nice even if not required. So far, only the Abusir map has alt text.
Done everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems with disambiguation links.
  • No dead URLS.
  • Minor overlinking in the main text. Miroslav Verner, Abusir, and Pyramid of Neferefre are each linked twice.
Done fixed, except for Verner as I did not find the second link to him?Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what happened with Verner, but I see no overlinks today. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth Thank you for your comments, I have addressed them all as you advocated.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your prompt response. All looks good to me with the exception of the four missing alt texts and the small matter, noted above, of my confusion about "This". I'm switching to support on prose regardless of how you handle these five small issues. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth As an absolute total dumbass I had put the alt captions in the article on Neferirkare Kakai rather than Neferefre. This is fixed now, although I do not know how to write an alt caption for the picture in the infobox. I have also fixed the issue with the "This". Thank you for your input! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with your self-assessment; you are extremely astute. :-) The "this" fix looks fine. I searched "Template:infobox pharaoh" to see how this template works and then added "image_alt=something" to the infobox. All you need do is replace the word "something" with whatever you think the alt text should say. Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thanks for the info!Iry-Hor (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (incl. source review and eventual spot-check) from A. Parrot

edit

I won't have as much time this weekend as I thought I might, so I'll be back for my final comments next weekend. I've made some tweaks to the prose already, but I'm putting more significant suggested changes here for discussion.

  • Sourcing: I haven't spot-checked the citations yet, but I will do so next week. As far as the sources' reliability goes, nearly all are rock-solid, recent Egyptological work. The handful of old sources are merely reports on artifacts and primary sources, and the news stories are based entirely on what Egyptologists say about recent discoveries. The only questionable thing is that the Luxor Times is hosted on Blogspot for some reason, but if that's he only place you can find the quotation from Bárta, I tend to think it's allowable.
Done. The Luxor Times is not the only place where the quote can be found, however it is the original source of the quote. All other articles on the subject, e.g. here they specify that this was what Barta told the Luxor Times. For good measure, I have added a second source quoting the Luxor Times article.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…a sun temple called Hotep-Re…" I'm not sure this name is needed in the lead section of the article, or even in the heading of the section about the sun temple, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference to me.
Ok so what about a middle ground: I remove Hotep-Re from the section title but keep it in the lead. I think it is a nice piece of information there, with the translation.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "King's mother", "King's wife", king's son: I'm never sure how to treat ancient Egyptian titles, but in any case they should be consistent with each other. The longer example of "king's eldest son" makes me think they're better in all lowercase. I don't think they should be italicized.
Done I absolutely agree.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Iry-pat and other Egyptian words: The first letter of iry-pat probably shouldn't be capitalized. Ideally, I'd like it to be transliterated, as many of the Egyptian words in the notes are, rather than transcribed, but I know it's hard to render Egyptian words in a consistent way when working from multiple sources, and sometimes it just feels easier to transcribe some words. "Hotep-Re" in particular feels like it should be transcribed so as to fit better in the article text.
Done. I have removed the capitalisation. As for transcription/transliteration I believe it is better to have it transcribed so that it can be read by casual readers. I have added Jrj-pˁt in the accompanying footnote for completeness but would prefer to keep "iry-pat" in the main text.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section titled "Pyramid of Neferefre" might better be titled "pyramid complex", because it's divided into subsections on different parts of the complex. I looked back on your previous Fifth Dynasty FAs to see what was done there, but the question doesn't arise in most of them because they aren't structured this way. You might want to change the section heading in Unas, though.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt… possibly inspired by the royal palaces of the time." If the palaces had hypostyle halls, even if they were wooden columns, that would make this one not the earliest. "earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt whose remains have survived" or something to that effect.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…or because of external constraints on the location of the tomb with respect to other active cults in the area." This passage feels wordy and indirect. I can't be 100 percent sure that this reflects the meaning conveyed in the source, but if it fits, I suggest re-wording the passage as "…or because the activity of other cults in the area constrained the choice of location for Khuyankh's tomb."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments next week, but I expect I'll support the article then. A. Parrot (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a hitch in the succession box at the bottom of the page: it says Shepseskare succeeded Neferefre, but the article on Shepseskare says Neferefre succeeded him. You might put "[[Shepseskare]]<br/> or [[Nyuserre Ini]]" in the box and do the equivalent in Shepseskare's succession box. That way, the succession boxes would match what the infobox says.
Done I updated the succession boxes of Neferirkare Kakai, Neferefre, Shepseskare and Nyuserre Ini in consequence.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primeval-mound claim may be a bit of a problem. First, the lead explains what the primeval hill is, thanks to earlier FAC comment, but the body text doesn't really do so (Note 10 links "myth of the primeval hill" but doesn't explain what it is, making the reader click away to the article on creation myths.) Second, my most recent source on Egyptian afterlife beliefs (Following Osiris, 2017) shows that the idea that pyramids were a mythic symbol is increasingly being challenged, which makes me wonder if primeval-hill symbolism would have been a consideration at all when hastily finishing up a dead king's tomb. That's not to say the primeval-hill assertion shouldn't be included, only that it shouldn't be treated as fact and probably shouldn't be in the lead. I'd say the lead should mention that Neferefre's pyramid was converted to a mastaba, and the explanation you added to the lead earlier about the primeval hill could be moved down into the article body at a relevant spot, probably in the section on the pyramid itself.
Done I was following Verner's interpretation, in particular note that the ancient Egyptian themselves called the monument a "hill" or "mound" (term i3t, which is translated this way in Faulkner's dictionary). I believe this is where Verner got his idea (plus the appearance of the monument). I removed the passage in the lead on "primeval hill" and put a clearer discussion in the relevant section. I added the sentence "Verner has proposed that the monument was completed this way so as to give it the form of the primeval mound, the mound that arose from the primordial waters Nu in the creation myth of the Heliopolitan form of Ancient Egyptian religion" directing the reader to both Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Benben. The footnote now only contains the alternative translation of i3t.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checks: Most citations check out, but there's an odd habit of citing one part of a sentence and then leaving a latter section uncited. This habit creates problems. For instance, the quotation "until Neferefre's death" (in the Accession section) has no citation, though it seems to be supported by the subsequent citation 77—where the source passage says "until the king's death". I don't think this short passage needs to be in quotes at all, but it should be supported by a citation. Similarly, the passage claiming that more statues of Neferefre survive than of any Fifth Dynasty pharaoh, which comes at the end of a half-cited sentence, is not sourced. Please recheck all claims in the uncited ends of half-cited sentences. A. Parrot (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I have looked at the mid-sentence citations and corrected three in total. Concerning the claim on statues, I had simply forgotten to put the citation. This is done now.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A. Parrot Everything is done!Iry-Hor (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Support. A. Parrot (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Mr rnddude

edit

This is my first time reviewing an FA candidate, so I'll try to explain my thinking behind changes that I propose. My thoughts are in reverse order (I'm reading from bottom to top);

  • "This large number testifies to the importance..." - The large number of 130 doesn't testify to anything at all. If I plucked a 130 feathers off a chicken, or if I poured 130ml of water onto the floor, or blinked 130 times at the wall, this would have no significance and would be trivia. It's the act of sacrificing many bulls that is testament to the importance of the funerary cults. I would either drop "large number" from the sentence or clarify that it's the "large number of animal sacrifices" that is important and not the number "130". The same statement applies two sentences later which begins "This number also shows..." which feels repetitive. In fact it might be possible to re-arrange the latter half of the paragraph to fuse two of the sentences together given how closely linked their topics are;
  • The act of mass animal sacrifice testifies to the importance that royal funerary cults had in Ancient Egyptian society and also shows the vast agricultural resources that were devoted to an activity judged unproductive by the Egyptologists Verner and Zemina, something they propose possibly contributed to the decline of the Old Kingdom. The main benefactors of these sacrifices were the cult's priests, who consumed the offerings after the required ceremonies.[30] or something similar.
Done, I agree this is clearer. I essentially wrote the same thing as you with a slight modificaiton in the first sentence.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...stone temple on the pyramid eastern side" - I think you mean pyramid's eastern side.
Done As far as I know I cannot grammatically use an "s" ending for non-animated things (e.g. "the car's windows" is not correct). So I wrote "on the eastern side of the pyramid" instead.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iry-Hor: Except... it is correct to say the car's windows... or the house's windows or the aircraft's windows. A maybe more digestible example would be "All the world's oceans make up 70% of the Earth's surface area". Both the "world" and the "Earth" are inanimate, I think you'd agree. You can place an 's for non-animated (which is more correctly inanimate) objects whenever the inanimate object is the possessor of the subject. The car possesses the windows, in your example example, or the world possesses the ocean and the Earth possesses the surface, in mine. Your recast of the sentence is fine though. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My English lessons wre all wrong then, or maybe I don't remember well. Are we sure this is not American vs British English?Iry-Hor (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of such a rule. Apparently it's one of those unfounded rules of English usage that circulate widely, but unlike most of them, it's specifically spread to people who learn English as a second language rather than to native speakers. Anyway, here] is an authoritative style guide pointing out that the rule is unfounded. Here is a specifically British guide (you'll have to scroll down) that says it's "usual" to use "of" with inanimate objects, but it doesn't treat the possessive as wrong. A. Parrot (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am glad to learn that this construction is grammatically acceptable. I have thus put "Pyramid's eastern side", which is definitely quicker to read than "the eastern side of the pyramid".Iry-Hor (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...who abandoned the task of covering the pyramid face and rather concentrated on building the mortuary temple in bricks and wood." - The "and rather concentrated" in this sentence doesn't read well to me. I'm reading it as "rather concentrated" as in "quite concetrated" and not "preferred to concentrate on" and this causes a mental jolt when I read the sentence. Perhaps drop "rather" from the sentence so that it reads; who abandoned the task of covering the pyramid face and [instead] concentrated on building the mortuary temple in bricks and wood [or here: instead]. Instead might fit better than rather.
Done yeap, "instead" is better.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...as well as what remained of the funerary equipment of the king" - Eh, I know king and pharaoh mean the same thing, but, try to stick to either king or pharaoh consistently rather than mixing terms to avoid confusion for the general public. You use pharaoh 19 times and king (excluding kingdom) 24 times throughout the article. I think king might be preferable as that would better reflect use contemporaneously because Pharaoh didn't come into use until much later historically. Though, Pharaoh is the much more popular term.
I actually disagree on this one. Using both "king" and "pharaoh" makes the text much less repetitive. I am well aware that the term pharaoh is not accurate historically-speaking, however it is commonly used nowadays for Ancient Egyptian kings as you observe. Since the article is written in modern English, I feel free to use the various words existing in the current language for the same thing, here king and pharaoh.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was further confirmed by..." - Either it was confirmed or it wasn't. Given the context of the next sentences: replace confirmed with corroborated.
Done I always like to use more variate vocabulary and corroborated fits nicely here.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was no evidence of brain removal..." - I suspect that there still is no evidence of brain removal [to this day]. So replace "was" with "is". Unless some evidence shows up which would then disprove the hypothesis this statement will remain true.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... as would be expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques." - I've given myself a topic ban from using the word would in articles because of serious overuse of it, so this may just be my self-imposed article space TBAN talking here, but, again "would be" can be replaced with "is" or even dropped completely to form: There is no evidence of brain removal[,] as [is] expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques. Though this is a minor nitpick on my part.
Done. I wrote " There is no evidence of brain removal as expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques" which is more direct and just as correct (wiz the source), so to be prefered.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... which yielded a 2628–2393 BC interval for the human remains ..." - I just don't like this construction, but, have no idea how to improve it. Interval in mathematical terms would be fine here, but, in common parlance it refers to a break or a pause not so much the period between two points. You know I had this problem with Djoser and the many disagreements on dates between authors. I struggled to come up with a good way to write all the suggested intervals into coherent sentences and just decided on "reigned, according to x, during the period of XXXA-XXXB BC". It looks so choppy. I'll offer an entirely new sentence instead: Radiocarbon testing dated the human remains to the period intervening 2628–2393 BC, which is in close correspondence to the estimated dates for the Fifth Dynasty, thereby offering final confirmation of the identity of the mummy or more complexly Radiocarbon testing dated the human remains to the period intervening 2628–2393 BC, which, being in close correspondence to the estimated dates for the Fifth Dynasty, offered final confirmation of the identity of the mummy.
I have seen "interval" used in the sense of the distance or period between two points in the literature as well as in the sources. I don't see a particular need to change things here.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Shrugs* it's not an issue for me if you like it the way it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... whose mummy has been identified with certainty." - "With certainty" is redundant. It's having being identified implies certainty.
Done ok on this one, although the stpry of the mummy of Merenre shows that you can identify a mummy without being certain.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A bioarchaeological analysis of Neferefre's remains revealed that the king did not partake in strenuous work,[15] died in his early twenties at between 20 and 23 years old and that he may have stood 1.67 m (5.5 ft) to 1.69 m (5.5 ft) in height.[101]

    The remains of a second individual were discovered in the burial chamber, but those proved to belong to an individual from the late medieval era, who likely lived during the 14th century AD. He had simply been laid on rags and covered with sand for his burial.[15]" - These are two very short single-dual sentence paragraphs and don't look very nice at all. You could do something like this:
    • Fragments of mummy wrappings and cartonnage,[98] as well as scattered pieces of human remains, were discovered on the east side of the burial chamber of the pyramid. The remains amounted to a left hand, a left clavicle still covered with skin, fragments of skin probably from the forehead, upper eyelid and the left foot and a few bones.[99] These remains were in the same archaeological layer as broken pieces from a red granite sarcophagus[98] as well as what remained of the funerary equipment of the king,[note 11] hinting that they could indeed belong to Neferefre.[15] This was further [corroborated] by subsequent studies of the embalming techniques used on the mummy, found to be compatible with an Old Kingdom date.[15]

      The body of the king was probably dried by means of natron and then covered with a thin layer of resin, before being given a white calcareous coating. There [is] no evidence of brain removal, as [is] expected from post-Old Kingdom mummification techniques.[15] A final confirmation of the identity of the mummy is provided by radiocarbon dating, which yielded a 2628–2393 BC interval for the human remains in close correspondence with estimated dates for the Fifth Dynasty.[100] Thus, Neferefre is, with Djedkare Isesi, one of the very few Old Kingdom pharaohs whose mummy has been identified.[62] A bioarchaeological analysis of Neferefre's remains revealed that the king did not partake in strenuous work,[15] died in his early twenties at between 20 and 23 years old and that he may have stood 1.67 m (5.5 ft) to 1.69 m (5.5 ft) in height.[101] The remains of a second individual were discovered in the burial chamber, [alongside Neferefre's] but those proved to belong to an individual from the late medieval era, who likely lived during the 14th century AD. He had simply been laid on rags and covered with sand for his burial.[15]

      This uses the last sentence of the first paragraph to lead into the topic of the second one. It makes sense to refer to Neferefre by name after his identity is confirmed and results in two similarly sized paragraphs instead of one big paragraph and two stubby ones.
Done you are right it looks better now.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Here are my second set of... complaints [ :) ]:
  • "... their priests therefore having to live next to the temple premises ..." - replace "having" with "had".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... has long disappeared." - This is fine, just, I kind of expected it to be has long since disappeared.
Done, I will follow your inate sense of the language as a native speaker, "has long since disappeared" it is then.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The temple entrance comprised a column courtyard adorned with two stone columns and 24 wooden ones." - Two minor nitpicks here; (1) when I went through school we were taught to write out numbers under 100, rather than just under ten. I would have written two stone columns and twenty-four wooden ones. Although I notice that the article is consistent about keeping numbers above ten as numbers e.g. 12 not twelve. (2) "column" feels repetitive here as it's used twice in quick succession. I'd write; The temple entrance comprised a courtyard adorned with two stone and twenty-four [24] wooden columns.
Done for (2). About (1), the limit at ten is a somewhat arbitrary policy de facto decided in the earlier FA on the Fifth Dynasty (I think this was discussed in the review on Nyuserre, if I remember). I feel like I should be consistent and follow the policy now.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt the remains of which can still be detected, ..." - This could mean two different things; 1) The earliest remains which can be detected, or, 2) The earliest remains and they can still be detected. If (2) was meant then put a comma behind Egypt to indicate that you are listing a new fact; Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt, the remains of which can still be detected, ... or is it a semi-colon that's needed (?) Behind was the earliest hypostyle hall of Ancient Egypt; the remains of which can still be detected, ... If (1) was meant, then leave as is.
Unchanged: it is (1) that is meant here.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "East of the main hall was the "Sanctuary of the Knife" which served as a slaughterhouse for the rituals." - I can imagine a reader will ask: What kind of rituals? The funerary one's I'm presuming, so; East of the main hall was the "Sanctuary of the Knife" which served as a slaughterhouse for the funerary rituals. Unless you think sufficient context exists in the rest of the paragraph and article. Then just leave as is.
Unchanged I cannot do that because the source does not say the rituals were only "funerary". In fact, it has been suggested that the sanctuary of the knife was used as a slaughter house for several cultic activities, some of which might have been destined to Ra rather than a deceased king. Thus, unless I can find a source backing the claim that the rituals were only funerary, I would prefer not to write this.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neferefre's successor—possibly the ephemeral Shespeskare" - Every single time I read it as "Shakespeare" and then have to double-take. I literally read this as Neferefre's successor—possibly the ephemeral Shakespeare.
Ah! You are not the only one! User Tim riley who has done a number of Ancient Egyptian reviews suffers from the same ailment. You will notice that at the top of the Shepseskare article, there is a mention that he should not be confused with "Shakespeare" as a number of readers were confused when Shepseskare was featured on the main page. NOTE: the name is Shepseskare and not Shespseskare, there was a typo in the article, which I have removed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This pharaoh also built a larger mortuary temple for his brother, extending over the whole 65 m (213 ft) length of the pyramid side but built of cheaper mudbrick and wood." - I think you're missing a citation here; you've put citations on every other sentence except this one. Also, which brother or supposed brother? Shespeskare (uncle or brother) has his own tomb, as does Nysurre Ini, and Iryenre had his funeral cult in the same place as his mother, Khentkaus II, so, was he buried with her?
Done citation added and I wrote "This pharaoh also built a larger mortuary temple for his brother Neferefre" for clarity. Nyuserre completed the mortuary temple of his elder brother Neferefre.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... only its lower courses had been completed ..." - Courses? you're referring to the interior here I presume, since they would have looked like mazes with various passageways and the such. I ask because in this period, Pyramids had stepped Mastaba's (like Djoser's) and I would have assumed you meant the lower steps were completed, although, that would imply that only the lower level interiors were completed as well. (Note: I checked the source directly; That of King Raneferef ... was even shorter. Although his pyramid did not progress beyond it's lowermost courses, the pyramid temple ...). I'm just curious what is being referred to with courses is all.
Unchanged At the time of the Fifth Dynasty pyramid construction techniques differ significantyl from earlier ones. The pyramids were built in layers (the "courses", I don't know why no source use the term layer, so I stick with the word "courses") of crude limestone and local desert stone rubble with retaining walls of limestone. A large open pit was dug in the center of the pyramid so as to built the subterranean chambers at the same time as the layers of the pyramid were built. There was no internal chambers as in the pyramid of Khufu. Because of the technique employed, the pyramids were cheaper and faster to built but if you remove the caising stones, then the rubble core is exposed and degrades rapidly. Unfortunately, stone robbers precisely took the caising stones (because they were typically of the fine, white, Tura sort) and the pyramid now look ruined.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the current academic view is that this number is an overestimation of his true reign length, which must have been shorter." - I'd say significantly shorter since it's more like two rather than twenty. Optionally, you can drop number from the sentence as it's not needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... archaeological evidence indicate" - missing "s". Either "archaeological evidences indicate that..." (for multiple pieces of evidence), or, "archaeological evidence indicates that..." (for a single piece).
Done is the evidences.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... 18 to 20 years old ..." - Might look slightly more professional to say ... 18 to 20 years of age ....
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... likeliness ..." - Likeliness... likelihood, maybe? Tiniest available nitpick.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Krejčí notes the lack of "king's son" title in relation to Kakaibaef..." - Either "of a" or "of the". Read this sentence aloud and you'll notice the issue. Maybe: Krejčí notes the lack of a title, ("king's son"), in relation to Kakaibaef... or Krejčí notes the lack of the titular "king's son" in relation to Kakaibaef. I think that last one sounds best.
Done, I took the second option because Kakaibaef certainly did have other titles (as virtually all members of the Egyptian upper class), so the first option does not feel right.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late in this year however, ..." - which year? since "this year" changes every year and will only remain true for "that year". I think, assuming this year is 2017, you mean Late in 2017 however, ...
Done I meant in 2014. The way it is written, I thought the preceding sentence made it clear that I was talking about 2014. So I now write "Late in that year". Read the first and second sentences of the paragraph together and tell me if this is still unclear.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... was still only a crown prince, that is before his accession to the throne" - While I like what you've done here, it's a sort of emphasis, I think you're missing a comma; ... was still only a crown price, that is, before his accession to the throne. Though the entire latter half of the sentence is unnecessary as he certainly wouldn't have been crown prince after his accession.
Done I have added the comma. I would prefer to keep the explanation because I prefer to be sure the reader understands rather than assume he/she knows what a crown prince is.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... given the king's reign brevity." - In my English (which should be Br-ENG as I was educated in Aus.) this would be king's reign's brevity, although, you could do given the brevity of the king's reign. Reign brevity, however, doesn't work. It'd be king's brief reign, but, brevity sounds so much better in a sentence.
Done, I took the option with "brevity of the king's reign", which I prefer.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you're done with these, mostly minor, nitpicks, I'll have to read the article forwards to get the story. Reading backwards is great for copy-editing, but, terrible for getting the narrative. I learned about the king's death before I learned anything about his life. Well... you know what they say; once you learn how to die, you learn how to live. I have no idea how I picked up that quote either. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude Ah! That's a good one, you are right backward reading is best for small issues. I hope forward reading gives you the big picture.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't mind, I'll stop here today and look at the rest of the article tomorrow. Very nice work on this one Iry-Hor and, being interested in Ancient History including Ancient Egypt, I look forward to seeing future Fifth Dynasty Pharaohs being brought up to FA. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude Thanks for your comments! If you are interested in 5th Dynasty pharaohs, Neferirkare Kakai is in need of a GA review before it can come to FAC. The article is of the same standard than Neferefre so if you feel like doing the GA review, this would speed up the process a lot (the GA stage is by far the slowest because there are so few reviewers). Also, if you haven't read them yet, Shepseskare, Nyuserre Ini, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi and Unas are all 5th Dynasty FA. There is also an FA on Sheshi (Second Intermediate Period).Iry-Hor (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the rest of the article Iry-Hor. You can find my comments above. I'll take a look at Neferirkare Kakai, if it's on Neferefre's level then it should be a breeze through GA. On a side note, you don't actually have to go through GA before FA, you can skip GA altogether and I know it takes forever to get someone to pick up a review (unless it's MILHIST, those get reviews in a couple weeks to months). Peer review is the alternative to GA if you're interested on getting someone's eyes on the article before putting it up for FA. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: Can I just check ref 93 is correct in citing "pp. 77—778."? In any case, I shall be promoting shortly. Sarastro (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 It was a typo in the page number. This seems to have been corrected by Parrot.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 [18].

SMS Zähringen

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is another in my series of German battleship articles. This article is part of the sub-series of articles that were written back in 2010 or so and then recently revised and expanded with new sources.Zähringen served for over 40 years in three different navies (from Imperial, Weimar, and Nazi Germany), but had a fairly uneventful career nonetheless. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Indy beetle

edit

All of my concerns were addressed in the A-class review. I support this article's promotion to FA class. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • No DABs
  • No overlinking
  • Link rammed, main battery, knots, squadron, Baltic Sea, torpedo, submarine, bomber, scuttled (all in the lede)
    • Done
  • Add Kaiserlich Marine in parenthesis after German Imperial Navy in the lede
    • Done
  • Link secondary armament, Kattegat, blockade, Skaggerak,
    • Done
  • Hyphenate twin gun turrets
    • Done
  • Move the links for North Sea and Danzig to the first occurrence
    • Fixed
  • Bornholm's Danish, how could German ships return there?
    • Good point - reworded
  • When did IV Squadron become VII Squadron? Or is this a typo?
    • That's the VII Division, which was half of the VI Squadron - clarified in the text
  • neither mistakes were repeated when
  • A little light on images; can you find any more out there on the intarwebs?
    • There are a few out there floating around (wrecksite has a couple of nice ones), but no sources, unfortunately.
  • Add a link to the Commons category.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

edit

Sources review

edit

Support from Vami

edit

Support from The ed17

edit

Great work. A few comments.

  • "... but by 28 August, the ship's crew ..." - which ship's crew? Did the squadron never make it to the cruiser?
  • "The German Army requested naval assistance for its campaign against Russia ..." - when did they ask for the assistance? Is there a link to that campaign?
  • Any plan to add something about "These experiences affected the conversion of Hessen, and neither mistake was repeated when that vessel was converted in the mid-1930s" to SMS Hessen? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: One image has alt text, the others don't. I think it should be one or the other for consistency. But that isn't worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2018 [19].

Connecticut Tercentenary half dollar

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a commemorative coin that for once, was not beset with scandal. And the Charter Oak is a bit of American history they don't teach much these days. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

Another authoritative article on coins from Wehwalt. A few trivial quibbles, which don't affect my support but you might like to consider:

  • Background
    • As I have said in previous reviews, "took the throne" doesn't sound quite right – shades of a coup d'etat – and "came to the throne" might be better.
    • "vend them to the public" – I don't know what "vend" has got that a plain "sell" hasn't.
  • Legislation
    • "that state's ...that committee" – perhaps change either or both "thats" into plain definite articles?
  • Preparation
    • "subject to Lawrie's criticisms being addressed, which they were, for the most part" – just checking that ref 15, a bit later in the para, covers this point.
      Yes, Taxay goes through the things that were changed, such as the pinion feathers on the eagle.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, and I'm pleased to support the promotion of this article, which I think meets all the FA criteria, and will be a valuable addition to the Wikipedia articles on coins. – Tim riley talk 21:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind words. I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

The citation detail in ref 6 could be a little more lucid. Otherwise, the sources look in good order and of appropriate qualility and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've expanded it a bit. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • All images are appropriately licensed.
  • The templates for the Charter Oak and the 1935 stamp and 1999 coin all allow for alt text but none is currently present. I don't know whether the Css Image Crop template for the Indian Head coin allows for alt text.
  • No action necessarily required but I noticed the template used for the 1935 stamp and 1999 coin does not allow the user to click the image to find licensing information. The reader needs to go into edit mode, find the name of the image, go to Wikipedia Commons, and search for the image. That's what I did anyway, not sure if there may be a quicker method. Anyway, I'm just saying it might be inconvenient for the user, something you may or may not wish to consider. Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've split up the 2-image template and added alt text to each. I don't understand the css image crop and prefer not to mess with it. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've also added alt text for the Charter Oak image. Moisejp (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor thing, the caption for the 1999 coin is a full sentence and rightly has a period, but of the other three that are not full sentences, only the stamp has a period. This is slightly inconsistent and would be better to decide one way for all three. Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the period. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Anythingyouwant

edit

Looks good to me. I merely inserted a pipe link to governor in the future state of Connecticut. That way, if people are interested, they can find out (e.g.) that it was really the 300th anniversary of Saybrook Colony which was distinct from New Haven Colony and from Connecticut Colony. Anyway, this is a nice little article, well done. I also added a tricentennial category. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the Congressional Record. That seems to be the template, so I've done it manually. I've moved the 1999 image and adopted your suggestions. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moise

edit

Everything looks good. I made some minor copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

edit

Reads well, I find nothing to nitpick about Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only thing I was left wondering is what is the highest grade known? So, I looked it up, NGC reports one MS-68, and PCGS reports one as well, should the actual number be mentioned? Also, it appears the auction record is still correct despite the source being ten years old -- seems only 67's and below have moved since 2002. Brilliant work on a lovely coin. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed for the comments. I don't think we should mention the population number as such things are subject to change and of course there may be resubmissions. I have added the deluxe Yeoman as an additional source for the record-holder. I've stopped mentioning actual grades because they are so much gibberish to the general public, but will mention tif you think it wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, likely not. That I cannot prove that the NGC and PCGS example are not, in fact, the same coin is perhaps the strongest reason not to mention the numbers. What might be worth adding as an EL is the PCGS report, not for the pop numbers, but for that lovely hi-res photo of one of the MS-68 examples. Courcelles (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a nice shot. I've added PCGS and will start adding that page. Due to the prejudice by some against commercial sites, I've been reluctant. Very helpful, nice to get some advice from someone familiar with the material. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 [21].

Thorium

edit
Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk), R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unsung natural radioactive metal (uranium gets all the press). I rewrote this article and sent it to GA in September 2014, having been motivated by the since semi-retired Mav's 2010 statement that he wanted to send it to FA. Since June 2016, R8R and I have been doing extensive work on it (including a PR; we addressed some of his concerns together even after the PR have been closed). This element deserves to be saved from the development hell its article has been going through and I hope your comments here will finally rescue it! (P.S. I recently helped at the PR for Smerus' project of Felix Mendelssohn, and some of the language in my nomination statement is inspired by his. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up the decay chain image
Good idea. Done.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Thorium_sample_0.1g.jpg: confused by the licensing here - it has an NC-ND tag, which is not permitted on Commons, but also a Free Art tag?
The author pointed me at Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing and Commons:Multi-licensing. I think that makes it clear.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Uranocene-3D-balls.png is tagged as lacking a description
Added description.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used a different file instead.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biological

edit
Well spotted, thank you. Reworded the sentence to match information in the source a little more closely.--R8R (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by XOR'easter

edit
I must be able to fix the referencing problems in a week. Sorry for the delay.--R8R (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I think we've addressed all your comments. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a few "clarification needed" tags, so I rephrased a couple sentences, hopefully without garbling the intended meaning. With that addressed, and not seeing any other problems, I am in support. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • The citations with links to google books all carry red error messages. I haven't investigated, but they need to be looked at.
  • Ref 51 (Persson): returns "page not found"
  • Ref 107: What makes straightdope.com a reliable source?
  • Ref 120: Check publisher. I can't see any mention of Battelle Memorial Institute: the publisher appears to be SciTech Connect
    • The front page of the document (click "View Full Text" to see it) reads "Released 1994 / Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830 / Pacific Northwest Laboratory / Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy / by Battelle Memorial Institute". Does this not make Battelle Memorial Institute the publisher? SciTech Connect cannot possibly be the publisher, as it was launched in 2013, nineteen years after this paper was released. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 146: The Guardian should be italicised
  • Ref 148: Requires retrieval date.

Other than the above, the sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the above in a week unless Double sharp manages to do it before the week passes. Sorry for the delay.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I never link to Google books in my FAs (unless the source is out of copyright) because the links vary with location and over time. Basically, they aren't sufficiently stable to be useful. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the Google Books links. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I think I've addressed all your concerns except the middle one, for which I've given an explanation why I think Battelle Memorial Institute is probably the correct publisher (I could be misreading this). Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

edit

I have no expertise in the field, but I can offer a few comments on prose:

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exposure is raised for people who live near thorium deposits, radioactive waste disposal sites, -> deposits or radioactive
  • Wickleder, M. S.; Fourest, B.; Dorhout, P. K. (2006) probably needs an ISBN
Yes, added.--R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emsley, John (2001) has an ISBN 10 instead of 13
Fixed.--R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This somehow didn't save the last time; it has now.--R8R (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get a Check |url= value warning for refs 5, 28, 29, 63, 77, 83, 101, 115, 128, 134, 135, 145
Some user at one moment all of a sudden changed some regularly formatted templates linking to Google Books so that they included {{google books}}. I didn't see what was good in that change but since I didn't see at the time what was bad, either, I left it as it is. Will have to fix now, though. --R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--R8R (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few notes seem to be missing a source, a d f j
At the moment, only two have no sources: a and f. Do you really see the info in either note as WP:likely to be challenged? I rather don't.--R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon John Emsley's Nature's building blocks on my bookshelf and it has a few things worth pointing out, which you may decide are worth while integrating:

  • total amount in body is given as 40 micrograms
I have not come up with a reasonable way to add this information. Given the rest of the information in the article, it rather seems a stray fact given that the element has no biological role and is not particularly notable at these concentrations.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no biological role for thorium". I think the article would benefit from a clear statement like this
Agree. Done.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely worth saying, especially since a biological role was once suggested in mammals for uranium(!). (This is not as silly as it might sound, because unlike Th, U has long-lived daughters, and your main worry is chemical toxicity rather than radioactivity.) Double sharp (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Esmark worked at was what then called the University of Christiania
see comment below
  • world production is in excess of 30,000 tonnes per year.
need to check if the figure is up to date
This did seem somewhat unrealistic or perhaps outdated. According to USGS, the output of the monazite concentrate was 2,700 metric tons in 2014. Added that.--R8R (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • known reserves exceed 3 million tonnes
same
On some thinking, I'd rather not. Given the low production, this figure is quite unrealistic because if the humanity was to recover, say, a tenth of that, prices would immediately fall and the definition of "reasonably assured resources" would yield a different figure.--R8R (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 ppm in Earth's crust
This seemed like a great idea, but look at Abundance of elements in Earth's crust and the diversity of numbers. I'll rather stay away from giving a figure.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • amount on Earth is about 85% of that which was present when planet formed
That's cool. Added.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • atomic weight is 232.0381
As of me writing this, we have an even more precise figure in the text.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • thorium oxide was used in the early days of X-ray diagnosis in 10,000 individuals.
Added.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These, apart from the Christiania note, are all good. Will do. We will only have to refer to newer sources. For instance, the atomic weight has been slightly changed since then, possibly so have production and reserves numbers. --R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall quite an impressive effort (although, as I said, I have no chemistry expertise). Edwininlondon (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin, thank you very much for taking the time. These are great comments and most of points raised are certainly worth addressing (DS has already addressed some of those). I will address at least some of your comments on Friday or during the weekend. At the moment, I will only note that Esmark's university was actually called Royal Frederick University at the time, and now it is called University of Oslo. It was never called University of Christiania. (Do not let this remark fool you, I find most of the remaining comments great and I'm looking forward to addressing them.)--R8R (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I think Double sharp and I have addressed your comments. Would you check the responses?--R8R (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All fine except the atomic weight. Your number may be more precise, but your source, ref #1, has 232.0381(1) I think you need a newer source. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source supported 232.0377(4); the reference actually linked to a document different than the referenced one. Thanks for bringing that up.--R8R (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I am no expert in the field, I give my support. Good luck and hopefully one day all elements will achieve FA. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We'll try to get as far in that direction as we can.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lean support Comments by Sandbh

edit

Citing Greenwood & Earnshaw, the article says, "The 5f character of thorium is also clear in the rare and highly unstable +3 oxidation state, in which thorium exhibits the electron configuration [Rn]5f1. I checked the source and, while it lists the +3 state for Th, it does not appear to say anything else about it i.e. no rare, no unstable, and no f electron (as cool as that would be). Maybe the ion has 5f1, but trivalent compounds seem to have 6d1.Sandbh (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ref for this got misplaced in some recent reshuffling; I'll go back and look at some older revisions. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't need to: in the spin-off compounds of thorium (which used to be part of this article), the uncommonness of ThIII (obviously, due to the hugely negative Th4+/Th3+ standard reduction potential) is cited to Cotton's Lanthanide and Actinide Chemistry instead. Page 152 gives "The large negative values of E° for M4+/M3+ for Th and Pa indicate that reduction to form (+3) species for these metals will be difficult, whilst for U, Np, and Pu the smaller E° values indicate that both the +3 and +4 states will have reasonable stability." Page 150 lists the [Rn]5f1 configuration for the Th3+ gaseous ion.
Apropos of that, it gets difficult to talk about Ac in this trend, which is why I think that it really makes a lot more sense chemically to start the actinide series at Th. Starting the lanthanides at Ce can be justified, but it gets awkward to talk strictly like that because Pr and Nd are your average cerium group lanthanides and act just like La; but because 5f has radial nodes and furthermore is relativistically destabilised, the end result is that Ac with no conceivable 5f involvement looks like a complete misfit as an actinide. It looks nothing like Th through Am, which have significant chemistry in higher oxidation states. It is more at ease with Cm and Bk, but those two bear to it the relation of Ce to La, because of the importance of the +4 state (the main thing about Ac is its s-block-like inflexibility on its oxidation state, just like its younger and more stable sister La). Even Cf still has significant +4 and +2 chemistry. And then you get to Es through No which are progressively happier with the +2 state (not even Sm, Eu and Yb go as far as nobelium does in preferring it and becoming an "honorary alkaline earth metal"). So it seems that only Lr actually lives up to "actinoid" meaning "like Ac", making it difficult to stuff Ac in the trend, although it fits a trend going down from Sc and Y fairly well. But this isn't the place to argue about this issue, as inevitable as it is when group 3 is in the vicinity. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copy editing in the rest of the article and added a few clarification required templates. An impressive and thorough piece of work. Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Very comprehensive, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this trend is due to the itinerance of the f-orbitals— I'm not sure what this means; it implies the f-orbitals are wandering around
  • density; actinium is lighter. —perhaps add "only" before "actinium"?
    • I think you've found a mistake! Einsteinium is divalent and is significantly lighter (8.84 g/cm3); though this may be because of radiation damage to the crystal structure when measured, a quick calculation shows that the divalent fermium, mendelevium, and nobelium should also have lower densities (see Talk:Fermium for the details). The trouble with making generalisations across the actinides is that information tends to run into a void around einsteinium, upon which our capability for making macroscopic samples runs out with four more actinides still to go. I've changed it to "Among the actinides up to californium, which can be studied in at least milligram quantities, thorium has the highest melting and boiling points and second-lowest density; only actinium is lighter.", with a note about Es. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of only three radioactive elements (along with protactinium and uranium) that occur in large enough quantities on Earth for this to be possible—For what to be possible?
  • passivation can occur, as with uranium and plutonium—earlier, you have said that the presence of thorium dioxide increases corrosion, here it's stopping it. Is this consistent?
  • Thorium complexes with organic ligands, such as oxalate, citrate, and EDTA, are much more stable and tend to occur naturally in natural thorium-containing waters—Two problems here; I don't like the close conjunction of "naturally" and "natural", and the way it's written implies that thorium complexes with oxalate, citrate, and EDTA all occur in nature. I doubt that, particularly with edta, and it's not quite what the source says
    • Rephrased to "In natural thorium-containing waters, organic thorium complexes usually occur in concentrations orders of magnitude higher than the inorganic complexes, even when the concentrations of inorganic ligands are much greater than those of organic ligands". Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning in the histogram legend that the vertical scale is non-linear (I don't mind what you decide on this)?
    • Yes, I think that's useful given the small size of the text. I've added a mention. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've nothing else, changed to "support" above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, though I've still got to fix the "itinerant" thing you pointed out – I've seen this wording before indeed, but looking it up in the dictionary certainly informs me that it needs an explanation. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doesn't it just mean "delocalised"? --John (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • It does, and this is why I've held off on this one for rather longer than I'd planned: we've just informed the reader that the increasing melting points from Fr to Th are due to having more electrons to delocalise (this is of course high-school chemistry stuff), but now we're telling them that the decreasing ones from Th to Pu come from the delocalisation of the f-orbitals and the increasing 5f-6d hybridisation causing the formation of directional bonds in the metal. (Funnily enough this covalent-bond explanation has also been applied to the high melting points of the 5d transition metals.) The electronic structures of the early actinides (Pa through Pu) are really not simple and I'm going back through the papers to see how I can re-explain this in a way that won't lead to hands being raised in the classroom. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have removed this bit, leaving just "After thorium, there is a new downward trend in melting points from thorium to plutonium, where the number of f electrons increases from about 0.4 to about 6: this trend is due to the increasing hybridisation of the 5f and 6d orbitals and the formation of directional bonds resulting in more complex crystal structures and weakened metallic bonding." The reason is that the delocalisation of the 5f orbitals is not really relevant here; it does happen, but any effects from it are swamped by the 5f–6d hybridisation. Both are consequences of 5f being more valence-like than 4f, which people are quick to attribute to relativity, but is also because 5f has radial nodes that 4f doesn't), but I don't think we need to go that far down the rabbit hole for the Th article.
              • BTW, the same thing happens in the lanthanides: here 4f is drowned into the core very quickly and only Ce ends up with an anomalously low melting point, because from Pr onwards only 5d and 6s are contributing. The dip at Eu and Yb is partly due to there only being two delocalised electrons instead of one, but the other factor is that now that 5d is empty there is no hybridisation at all since only 6s is contributing, resulting in melting points not so different from that of Ba. The situation for Mn in the 3d row is a bit different, as the weird crystal structure is not because of hybridisation but the need to try and maximise both the magnetic spin moment (Hund's rule) and the bond-strength. (Magnetism isn't an issue for Tc and Re, which have normal crystal structures; it only becomes one in the 3d row.) Now I think the curious students are satisfied and the not-so-curious students won't be confused. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Smerus

edit

OK I now know a lot about thorium I didn't know before. The article seems very thorough and it's clearly written. I can't think of anything I would want to know about thorium which isn't covered. So for what it's worth from a non-scientist like me, you get my support. -- Smerus (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Smerus! Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2018 [22].

Bat

edit
Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Dunkleosteus77

This article is about yet another major group of mammals: bats. They will make a nice addition to the FA list being the only mammals capable of flight. We have already got this article to GA status and John has done multiple copyedits. We now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of the images in the taxonomy diagrams are too small to be reasonable representations of the group they attempt to depict
Scaled them up, hope that's better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also suggest scaling up the bat wing and song acoustics diagrams
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zalophus_californianus_J._Smit_(white_background).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Rhinopoma_microphyllum.jpg, File:MystacinaTuberculataFord.jpg, File:Furipterus_horrens.jpg
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Big-eared-townsend-fledermaus.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Batlook2.jpg
Replaced link and removed image. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Craseonycteris_thonglongyai.JPG does not have a FUR for this article
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pipistrellus.ogg: is a more specific source available?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added File:Bristol.zoo.livfruitbat.arp.jpg File:Group_flying_dogs_hanging_in_tree_Sri_Lanka.JPG which was uploaded by the author. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood

edit
Classification
  • What date is the classification listed? 2011 classification is mentioned as not including things, but it is not clear if the list below is 2011 or something else.
if you're talking about the cladograms, I've added the dates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clearer without that paragraph.
  • Nycteridae are mentioned as not fitting in, then we are left wondering what happened to them.
Looks like an editor back in October realized there wasn't any mention of Nycteridae in the list and decided to make a note of it, but the family Nycteridae is not actually mentioned in the study so I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clearer without that paragraph.
  • Yinpterochiroptera also presumably currently deprecated? Also a bit unclear.
depends who you ask, some'd say bats are split into fruit bats and all other bats, and some'd say Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera as far's I can tell   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clearer without that paragraph.
  • Genetic evidence indicates that megabats originated during the early Eocene, and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats. (my emphasis) this does not appear to agree with the cladogram below which shows megabats as a sister clade to microbats. The paragraph below the cladogram explains a traditional subdivision which appears to match the cladogram better, so consider moving the paragraph below to above so the natural path of reading gets the explanation before being confused by an apparent contradiction.
Indeed. Rearranged the paragraphs and added a small cladogram (most of the details being the same) to show the Yin/Yang division. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me.
  • last para: This may have been used at first mainly for communicative purposes or to map out their surroundings in their gliding phase, only being used to forage on the ground for insects or among vegetation seems to be missing something.
I rearranged it, I'm not really sure what it's missing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nor was I, the sentence structure seemed incomplete. What you have now works better.
Wings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine.
  • The skin on the body of the bat, which has one layer of epidermis and dermis, as well as the presence of hair follicles, sweat glands and a fatty subcutaneous layer, is very different from the skin of the wing membrane. is the presence of useful here? It does not look right to me.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine.
Gas exchange
  • OK
Internal systems
  • No problems noticed. - OK
Echolocation
  • Tiger moths: apparent contradiction between text and image caption. Text indicates aposematic signals, image states jammimg.
they can do both, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but "Other" refers to tiger moths, and therefore excludes them, followed by including them again. Maybe replace other with "several", "some", or something else that is more neutral.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear which reference supports the claim on jamming.
if these're the two in the tiger moth image, they both do   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was referring to the refs in body text, but image refs are fine. I had not noticed them at the time.
Vision
  • no problems detected
Magnetic field
  • it is thought they use a magnetite-based method for orientation may be overstating a hypothesis, based on the references cited.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now.
Thermoregulation
  • Compare section Wings 2nd paragraph: The skin on the body of the bat, which has one layer of epidermis and dermis, as well as hair follicles, sweat glands and a fatty subcutaneous layer, is very different from the skin of the wing membrane. with secton Thermoregulation 2nd paragraph: Unlike birds which have air sacs or other mammals which have sweat glands, bats have no means to cool themselves by evaporation, though they may use saliva to cool themselves in an emergency. These appear contradictory regarding sweat glands.
I'm torn because one ref says, "The body skin had an epidermis, a dermis with hair follicles and sweat glands and a fat-laden hypodermis," and the other says, "they have no system for evaporative cooling, either internal like the air sacs of birds, or external like the sweat glands of many other mammals." I assume it's because bats are mainly wings, which don't have sweat glands, so it's a rather inefficient means of staying cool, but I can't find anyone who actually says it straightforward   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit of a problem. Is one of the sources likely to be more reliable than the other about this specific detail, or might a third opinion be available somewhere? It is a clear contradiction, which is likely to be noticed by some proportion of readers, and while we need to avoid OR, we do need to avoid contradiction in a FA, particularly on a matter of observable fact.
I've looked through numerous sources, and for both megabats and microbats they discuss evaporative cooling in terms of saliva, panting, and wing-fanning, but not sweat. I've edited the text and added two more sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction seems to have gone, so a definite improvement.
Torpor
  • The section may be improved by a short introductory sentence explaining torpor,
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK.
  • How would bats use torpor to avoid predation?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK
Ecology
  • How do bats construct tents by biting leaves?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better.
Food and feeding

They can travel large distances, up to 800 kilometres (500 mi), in search of food. Over what kind of period?

No period is mentioned in source. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source give the impression it is diurnal or an overall foraging range, or something else. Diurnal seems unlikely.
Overall range. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth clarifying.
OK, rewritten and replaced source to talk about foraging range. Migration is discussed elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Predators, parasites and diseases
  • Nipah Hendra viruses - Is that actually an accepted name? Not found by a google search.
Two different viruses: have added "and". They're both Henipaviruses as linked, and both carried by bats. Added ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now.
  • Bats are implicated in the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in China, since they serve as natural hosts for Coronaviruses, several from a single cave in Yunnan, one of which developed into the SARS virus. Is this several Coronaviruses from the same cave?
Yes. There are thousands of bats in a typical cave roost. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
References
  • Makanya2017 - checked three instances - OK.

Done for now. Support for comprehensibility and usefulness. Tentative support in general. I intend to check in later in case there are large changes. Ping me if It looks like I am not paying attention. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lingzhi

edit
if it had something to do with the |date= parameter, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mm, I found the warning script in [my common.css]. Sixteen errors are "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list "; one is "explicit use of et al". There may be other errors... I'll fix a few of them for you; I have a few moments right now....[later] OK, I fixed 2 or 3. You can see what I did. But thre's a more serious (but still quite fixable) problem below...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't check to see if it's all fixed but I think it's all fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, also, sometimes you use lastname/initials, but sometimes you give lastname/full first name. Is that because you intended to use the full name every time but your sources provided only initials, or because the formatting is inconsistent? If it's the latter, then the easiest fix of course would be to consistently use only initials.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it necessary to have only initials or only full names? One can only provide what is available, and insisting on consistency in this is equivalent to insisting on initials only for all FAs, as there is always the chance that a reference added later may only give initials. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency is required, last time I checked. You can do it almost any f*cking way you want -- with very few exceptions, as for example when I threw a fit because one article had refs sorted by middle initial -- but you have to stay consistent with it. This is also the norm for publications out in the world. Some use full names (when available), and some use only initials. So if you use only initials, and someone adds a full name, you change it. That's why we have watchlists.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time I checked FA criteria, 2c: consistent citations referred to consistent formatting of inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing, and a link to Wikipedia:Citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. It is possible that there is something somewhere in policy or guidelines that states that a consensus decision has been made that FA requires the consistent use of full first name XOR initials, but if so I have never been able to find it, so I would appreciate if you could link me to that place. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • you've already linked to it. Wiafa says consistently formatted using... Not formatted by consistently using. It means choose a style and use it consistently...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've formatted all the refs with initials only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your interpretation? Or does it actually spell it out somewhere in an RfC or something? You see, that is not how I understand it, and I have previously looked for the same information without success. If there is no clarification available, it should probably go to RfC as it is obviously open to interpretation, and there are practical reasons why inflexibility is not ideal in this case. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can rfc or whatever you want, but it's always been that way. I suggest you try wt:fac before rfc, but hey, do whatever you want. I will not participate in it (links to various essays elided here)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do as you suggest and refer to wt:fac when I have finished searching through the archives of Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria which seems like the most logical place to start. One thing I can say from my researches so far is that it has not "always been that way", as originally there was no requirement for in-line references at all for FA. I probably won't bother to refer back to you until I find something one way or another as you do not appear to be interested. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care how it turns out. Don't ping me. I will neither support nor oppose your article; WP:DGAF.... But as for "hasn't always been that way"... it is extremely possible (ver likely, even) that reviewers didn't check in some cases. So what you need for positive proof is not a case where no one flagged it; what you need is a case where it was explicitly noted as irrelevant.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

I'll be back after a proper perusal, but from a quick first once-over it seems to me that though the article is in BrE, two Americanisms have crept into the main text: "center" in the second paragraph of "Wings", and "fetus" in "Mating". Back anon. Tim riley talk 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim. Fixed those two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First batch of comments

Zoology, taxonomy and a lot of other ologies and onomies being beyond my ken, please treat these comments as being from a well-disposed layman, and excuse any howlers. Comments down to the end of "Taxonomy and evolution" section.

  • Lead
    • "Bats are the second largest order of mammals" – is this the orthodox adjective for "orders"? Fine if so, but for a brief moment my thought was directed to the size of the mammals rather than the number of members. If "second largest" is the idiomatic form, then should it have a hyphen?
    • "20%" – the manual of style used to, and I think still does, ask us to spell out the term "per cent" (or "percent", if in AmE) in the text. Ditto for "70%" in the same para. See now comments in second batch, below.
    • "About 70% of bat species are insectivores, and most of the rest eat fruit." – slightly lopsided phrasing: if "insectivores" one might expect "frugivores" or, conversely, if one lot "eat fruit" then the other to "eat insects".
Said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last sentence of second para goes on a bit, with a repeated "and". It might read more smoothly if you broke it with a semicolon or full stop after "refuges". Possibly the latter, as there are rather a lot of semicolons in the text (more than 300) and one does begin to notice them after a while. (I speak as one who is prone to overusing them himself.)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bat dung has been mined as guano" – suggests that this no longer occurs. Is that so?
    • Last para of lead has three sentences in a row starting with the word "bat".
Changed one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etymology
    • Citations 5 and 1 at the end are the wrong way round.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification
    • More percentages, as above, here and below.
  • Fossil and molecular evidence
    • "Yinpterochiroptera includes … Yangochiroptera includes" – is there a convention that the use of a plural word is to be read as singular when applied to a suborder etc? Otherwise the two big words seem to want a plural verb.
Yes.
    • "debate continues as to the meaning" – I respectfully agree with Fowler that "as to" used as here is an undesirable (Fowler uses a stronger adjective) substitute for some simple preposition: "about", in this case. There is another "as to" later in the section, to which the same comments apply.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fossil bat from the 52 million year old Green River Formation" – I get in a dither over hyphens, but I think this should have them in "52-million-year-old". I may be wrong.
    • "Onychonycteris likely alternated" – others (particularly younger editors) may disagree, but to me this is an Americanism, and "Onychonycteris probably alternated" would be the usual BrE.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "flew from tree to tree and spent most of its time climbing or hanging on the branches of trees" – do we need the last two words?
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "support the claim that…"– I'd be cautious about the word "claim". It carries judgemental overtones. A neutral word such as "theory", "hypothesis" or even "statement" might be safer.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "target flying prey with echolocation" – can be read the wrong way at first reading: safer, perhaps, to change the preposition to "by".
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. This is a tremendous article, but (unavoidably) hard for the lay person to take in at one go. More later. Tim riley talk 10:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch from Tim
  • Wings
    • "percent" as one word: I jotted down a comment that this should be BrE "per cent", but the further down the article I got, the more I thought the plain "%" symbol looked perfectly OK, particularly in a scientific article like this, and if I were the three nominators I'd be tempted to go with it throughout, and to hell with the MoS (which is only a general guideline, or so it avers.)
Thanks but I think we'll just settle for the MOS. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I tried to rationalise %, percent and per cent for you, but you need to go through one by one and fix it. Tim riley talk
    • Something has gone awry with the third sentence, which has a bit of a citation sticking out of the end.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The membranes are also delicate, tearing easily; but can regrow..." – semicolon should be just a comma here.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The patagium is the wing membrane. The patagium is stretched" – perhaps replace the repeated "the patagium" with "it"?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "webbing between the digits which form into the wing membranes" – this is where the lay person (this one, at any rate) is at a loss. Is it the webbing or the digits forming into the wing membranes? If the latter, fine; if the former, the verb needs to be singular. If we're being ultra-purist, the grammarians and style manuals would have us write "that" rather than "which" for a "restrictive" (defining) clause such as this.
The webbing forms... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internal systems
    • "Due to the restraints of the mammalian lungs" – it is an old-fashioned view, but in good BrE "due to" is not used as a compound preposition as "owing to" is. Besides, "because of" is plainer and better than either, both here and at later incidences.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Carnivorous bats which consume large amounts of protein can output concentrated urine" – the point about restrictive clauses, above, is perhaps a bit pedantic, but here I think the meaning is unclear if it is not plainly either a restrictive or a non-restrictive clause. In short, do all carnivorous bats consume large amounts of protein and pee it out, in which case we need commas round the non-restrictive clause: "carnivorous bats, which consume large amounts of protein, can output concentrated urine", or is it only some of them, in which case it would be clearer to have "carnivorous bats that consume large amounts of protein can output concentrated urine"?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bat calls are some of the most intense airborne animal sounds, and can range in intensity from between 60 and 140 decibels." You want either "from" (with "to", rather than "and") or "between" but not both. (I also wonder if, so soon after "most intense", you need "in intensity".)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "helps to sharply focus not only echolocation signals, but also to passively listen..." – the not-only-but-also construction seems to have gone off the rails here. I think we need: "helps not only to sharply focus echolocation signals, but also to passively listen..."
I've used 'and'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vision
    • "travelling between their roosting grounds and their feeding grounds" – I might omit the second "their".
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size
    • "It is also arguably the smallest extant species of mammal, next to the Etruscan shrew." This doesn't seem to me quite what the source says. As it stands the sentence appears to say that the bat is second to the shrew in the smalless stakes, but the source says it is the smaller of the two, though not the lighter. Have I got this wrong?
"Next to" is better wording since size can be defined by length or weight. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predators, parasites, and diseases
    • "The evidence is thought by some zoologists to be equivocal" – is it possible to give an indication of whether "some" means a few, many or even most?
    • "In 2014 ... species native to northern Mexico and the West had not yet been affected" – as 2018 is about to be at our throats I just wonder, do we know if anything has changed since 2014?
Updated. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Social structure
    • "Some bats lead solitary lives, while others live in colonies of more than a million bats." – I really would omit the last word: it strikes a mildly absurd note. Nobody is going to imagine they live in colonies of whelks or hippos.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life cycle
    • "this is likely due" – the "due" is used properly (according to my Old English prescription, that is) but I still boggle at the "likely". (I privately prefer the AmE "likely" to the BrE "probably" – shorter and crisper – but it doesn't, I think, belong in a BrE article.)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservation
    • "all bats are protected under the Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1998; species such as the hairless bat ... are still eaten" – this looks a bit odd. I'm not sure the semicolon is an adequate understudy for a but, however, although or nonetheless here.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "About 100,000 tourists per year" – a very minor matter, but on the generally sound policy "prefer good English to bad Latin" I'd make this "100,000 tourists a year".
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. I felt shockingly ignorant reading some of this impressive article, but I enjoyed it very much all the same, and I am quite a bit less ignorant now. I shall make it my New Year resolution never to use the phrase "blind as a bat" again. I'll look in in a day or so to, I hope and expect, add my support. – Tim riley talk 13:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my quibbles, and certainly all of them that I think matter much, have been addressed, above, and I'm very happy to add my support for the elevation to FA of this fine article, which I think meets all the FA criteria. I've never been much interested in bats (unless made of willow) but I found this article absorbing – well done! Tim riley talk 21:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll review this soon. One first thing I was wondering about is whether it should be mentioned in the culture section that bats have become part of the vampire myth? I see Dracula is mentioned, but isn't it more general than that? Maybe Casliber knows something about this, after working on the vampire FA. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is mainly Dracula but worth looking over the sources again I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is mainly Dracula, but he was presaged by Varney the Vampire complete with feasts of blood. Linked and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems the taxonomic history is glossed over, who defined the group, under what circumstances, and when and why were various revisions made?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and only an estimated 12% of the bat fossil record is complete at the genus level." Not sure what this means. Also, it is impossible to know how much of the fossil record is "complete", so it is at best a very vague estimate, which needs to be noted.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now considered to be a microchiropteran" This is of little interest to the reader unless you state why this change is significant.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should give ages for the fossils mentioned, otherwise their context and significance is unclear.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reflected the view that these groups of bats had evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight." This wording makes it seem like this view is outdated, though this does not seem to be the case?
  • "form a single or monophyletic group" I'd replace "single" with "natural". A group can only be single, no?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a conclusion supported by a 15-base-pair deletion in BRCA1 and a seven-base-pair deletion in PLCB4 present in all Yangochiroptera and absent in all Yinpterochiroptera" You don't go into this level of technical detail for the other DNA studies.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could state how long ago the varius geological ages mentioned were.
I don't see why they are relevant if the age of the fossils are stated. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that those have been added, it is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One phylogenomic study showed that the two new proposed suborders were supported by analyses of thousands of genes" This is very weirdly written. Which DNA studies don't analyse thousands of genes?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera." Seems strange this text comes so far down in the section, out of chronological order. This was obviously proposed before genetic testing was done, so it should be mentioned before.
It's mentioned here because this paragraph is on flight evolution. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an intermediate fossil bat" Intermediate between what?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossil and molecular evidence" This section could simply be renamed "evolution".
See this conversation. LittleJerry (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, there is nothing there that explains why the "Fossil and molecular evidence" section shouldn't be renamed evolution? Seems to be a more inclusive, less clunky name. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "paraphyly" Define.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mix UK and US English. You have both colour and color, for example, so this should be checked throughout.
Fixed colour. Others have pointed out UK vs US spellings which have been corrected. LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are the only mammals that can truly fly" You should define what makes them true fliers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slow-motion and normal speed of Egyptian fruit bats flying" Add "footage" or "video".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The digits and arms are parts of the wings, so it doesn't really make sense to have a section on wings that doesn't include them. Maybe make a section on wing-membranes, or more inclusively about the entire wing.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure is a bit iffy when it comes to the "flight" and "wings" section as well. For example, why is the following text not in the flight section? "By folding the wings in toward their bodies on the upstroke, they save 35 percent energy during flight.[46] Bats save energy by drawing in their wings on the upstroke." Much more seems it should go into flight as well. I think you could move all info specifgically about flight to the flight section, and then rename the section "wing membranes".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it could be explicitly mentioned that along with birds and pterosaurs, bats are the only vertebrate animals ever capable of powered flight.
Three out of the four flying animals are vertebrates, so the wording would be strange. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in the absolute sense or per taxon? In any case, the point is to show that only three groups of vertebrate animals are capable of flight, not how many of them/species of them that are flying at a given time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bats being able to fly makes them unique among animals and living organisms in general, not just vertebrates. Saying bats are the "only" vertebrates that can fly would imply that there are many non-vertebrate animals can fly. In reality, only four groups can fly and three are vertebrates. LittleJerry (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, it may be interesting to note how the wings of these creatures have convergently developed, here is a relevant diagram:[23]
They are compared to birds in different places. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supports the leading edge" Add "of the wing".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cervical vertebrae" Add that these are in the neck.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " apoptosis only affects" Explain.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This adaptation does not permit bats to reduce their wingspan as birds do," Do they? In what way?
I don't understand. It says they can't reduce their wingspan. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the birds. What does it mean that they reduce their wing span? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the upstroke, birds partly fold their wings, reducing both the wingspan and the wing area, but leaving the wing stiff enough to resist bending and twisting, the feathers remaining as stiff airfoils; bats cannot do this because the membrane only functions as a wing when stretched between outstretched fingers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spp." should not be in italics.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should specify which group of bat you're referring to in various section. For example, megabats don't useecholocation, yet you only say "bats" in the section on that feature, while you should specify "microbats".
I replaced the first "bat" in the section with "microbat". It is also established earlier that megabats can't echolocate. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's established, that's why it seems odd that you refer to microbats as just bats in that section, when what's written doesn't apply to megabats. But I guess it's better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that they are chemically protected" What does this mean?
That the bugs are poisonous I presume. Dunkleosteus77 would be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could be good to get this clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added gloss: tiger moths are aposematic, meaning that they signal honestly that they are unprofitable as prey, in their case because they are sufficiently poisonous to taste foul and be rejected as food. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost all bats are nocturnal," Yet the article body indicates it depends on whether it is a microbat or a megabat?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are homeothermic" Explain.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use heterothermy" Likewise.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Among microbats, Myotis yumanensis, Tadarida brasiliensis and Antrozous pallidus" Elsewhere you use the common name first, and scientific name second. Why only scientific name here and some other places?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cope with temperatures up to 45 Celsius by panting, salivating and licking their fur to promote evaporative cooling; this was sufficient to dissipate twice their metabolic heat production." Why change in tense?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metabolism go down" Decrease would sound less awkward.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some bats aestivate" Explain.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems megabats roost in trees, but this is not mentioned here.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "fruit bat" is never explained. is this a synonym of megabat?
Usually. I made some changes anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the process of losing the ability to synthesise vitamin C" Why, what s the advantage?
I would think it is obvious since vitamins are important. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why I ask, what is the benefit of losing the ability to use it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fact can be observed without the reason necessarily being explained, but all metabolic pathways have an energy cost, and if a substance is available in the diet, then that cost may not be worth paying in evolutionary terms. Genetic drift may also be a sufficient explanation here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mortality rates of 90–100% have been observed in most caves" Most affected caves, I'd assume.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "substantial sympatry" Explain.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "70% of the directed calls could be identified as to which bat made it" Perhaps good to note by who. Researchers, I assume, and not just by other bats.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the wings, there is very little physical description. Are all bats furry? What is their range of colouration? What about the shape of their heads, ears and noses? Seems some have long tails and some have short tails?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leave behind a mating plug" Explain how this works.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems many sections are microbat-centric. For example under "Reproduction and life history" there is little to nothing about megabats.
It mentions both tropical and temperate reproduction times. Also microbats are the vast majority of species. Megabats are mentioned if they differ from the rest in significant ways. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest recorded bat is a 41-year-old male Brandt's bat." This bat will not live forever. Better to state something like "the oldest recorded bat was a 41-year-old male Brandt's bat identified in 2016" or some such.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats may be attracted to these structures, perhaps seeking roosts, increasing the death rate." Wind turbines are not mentioned in the previous sentence, so it might be good to repeat, as it is unclear what "these structures" refers to.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a winged bat cryptid known as Popobawa" The source doesn't refer to it as a "cryptid", which is not exactly a neutral term.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems rabies spread to humans from bats and "attacks" by vampire bats could be mentioned under human interactions.
We grouped all these things to appear on one place only. Since humans are part of the ecosystem, all such interactions could appear twice, which is undesirable, so we've restricted the 'humans' section to conservation and cultural significance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, can only glide for short distances." Only stated in intro. Also, this is way too much specific detail for the intro, should be moved to the article body.
Removed from lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are less efficient flyers than birds" Only seems to be stated in the intro.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), and comprise about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide" Only stated in intro.
Also now in Classification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the less specialised and largely fruit-eating megabats," You don't mention this "specialised/less specialised" dichotomy in the article body.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 70% of bat species are insectivores" Only stated in intro.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "zoologists wonder whether bats have these behaviours" Very flowery. Just say that it is uncertain if these behaviours are for this.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bats are economically important" Only stated in intro.
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest bats are a few species of Pteropus (fruit bats or flying foxes) and the giant golden-crowned flying fox, Acerodon jubatus" The latter one should also be mentioned in the size section, then.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

I've done the first column. The rest will follow shortly

  • Refs 4 and 5: The true source is Liddell and Scott's dictionary. Perseus Digital merely provides the online vehicle.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15: Page range inconsistency
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: Wouldn't an "et al" do, in place of this mega-list of contributors? (To a lesser extent, this issue arises with with other refs)
seeing as it's already there, I don't see why it should be taken down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: Retrieval date missing
I put today's date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32: template error
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: returning "page you have requested cannot be found."
removed url since it has a PMC   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 47: The pdf link doesn't seem to be working
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 49: ISBN should be in consistent (13-digit) format. It's 978-3-642-39333-4
thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56: Publisher is National Geographic rather than website address
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 66: Can you clarify the publisher, and add retrieval date
fixed 23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Ref 90: Publisher given as "JRank". To which organisation does this refer, and where is this mentioned iun the source?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 100: The title is "The Art and Science of Bats". "Smithsonian" is the publisher.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

edit

– and here it is:

  • Ref 111: p. range inconsistent
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 112: ditto
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113: the title is incorrect
Its a species page. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 119: yields message "sorry, no such page" – as does 126
Removed urls. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 131: link not working - repeated timeouts
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 132: the 13-digit ISBN is 978-0-8018-3970-2
This appears to be ref 138's ISBN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 138: you should standardise ISBN format in line with the others
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 140: the link appears to go to a different page
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 141: the website has been redesigned. link should go to the current location of the article
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 142: retrieval date missing
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 148: not formatted properly, and error in access date
Added access date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 157: publisher and retrieval date required
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 159: ditto
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 161: See my note on ref 23. The point is, this is use of space to no useful purpose, which clutters an already crowded sources section. It's not a clincher, but anything that can improve the presentation of the article without harming its substance should be done.
The paper has 4 named authors which seems not unreasonable nowadays. In physics and medicine, with far longer lists, there is certainly an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 170: Retrieval date required
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 172: ditto
All refs around this no. seem to be ok now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 176: p. range inconsistency
(now #178) Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 188: publisher missing
(now #189) Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 203: "Fox7" is publisher. The author is RaeAnn Christensen
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 204: "Bat Conservation International" is the publisher, not "Web.archive.org" which is a means of access. The title here is equivocal – as this is the organisation's home page, perhaps "All about bats" would serve?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 205 and 206 both link to the same site, although the ref details are different.
Merged and updated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 207: Publisher missing
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 208, 209, 210: inappropriate italicisation of publisher
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 214: "retrieved" → "Retrieved"
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 216: Gives message "Sorry, your request cannot be accepted"
Set deadurl to true, the archiveurl is there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 219 & 222: inappropriate italicisation of publisher
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 224: ISBN missing
ISBN added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 226: Format is irregular (cite template not used), p. no and isbn missing. As this is the fourth citation of a string, you might not be losing anything if you dropped it.
Dropped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 238: Template error
Title, trans-title added.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 241: inappropriate italicisation of publisher
Journal is auto-formatted in italics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. When replying, if a ref number has changed since this review it would be helpful if, in any note, you quote the revised number. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, okay now? LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but numbers have changed and it's not easy to check in detail. I'll take your word for it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

Reading though now..

The lead jumps about a bit and I think needs some work. I am looking at it. I'd add the line on number of species, and largest and smallest bats - to para 1. I'd make para 2 on classification, including the new arrangement. I'd move all diet material to para 3 (currently scattered about). I can have a go at this if you want.
I think I fixed it, but I did not do it like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology section - would be good to have some dates on when bat first used.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The classification section establishes there are two suborders...and then challenges that? Is there consensus that the new arrangement (Yinpterochiroptera/Yangochiroptera) is the right one?
as far's I know, there is no consensus really   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus from different analyses is emerging that the two new suborders are monophyletic, the 2013 review paper by Tsagkogeogea et all stating "unequivocal support" from molecular analyses, though it noted that older work by Koopman 1993 had supported the traditional mega/microbat division. We have reflected that traditional morphological /emerging modern molecular picture in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Yinpterochiroptera/Yangochiroptera classification really needs to be in the lead then. The other issue is how to arrange the classification section as it still starts off by reading as if the micro-/megabat split is current/still valid. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's now in the lead; taxonomy placed after phylogeny to allow a lead-in sentence to say the taxonomy reflects the traditional megabat/microbat split. Hope that fits the bill for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were formerly grouped in the superorder Archonta, along with the treeshrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and primates - this sentence probably fits better further down in evolution material.
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Chiroptera as a whole are in the process of losing the ability to synthesise vitamin C: most have lost it completely - I'd lose the "most have lost it completely" as you restate and expand a few sentences later
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The material on guano does not belong in the Cultural significance section.
I reorganized it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I am happy with most of the article. I feel that the lead and classification sections are possibly still a little choppy (but concede they are tricky to get right), though have improved a lot. It is definitely comprehensive. I just need to think on this and read it again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have copy-edited the lead and Classification for smoothness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic evidence indicates that megabats originated during the early Eocene, and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats - given that they already have been placed with them in the new classification, "should" is problematic.
The placement has been proposed on phylogenetic grounds, but has not yet found its way into taxonomy. Taxonomy always and necessarily trails phylogenetic research, which in recent years has rapidly undone many thousands of traditional assumptions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the word "should" implies that they haven't already been classified with the other lines, but in the new classification they have. I just think the word "should" should be rephrased. "close affinities" etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "belong" is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following classification from Agnarsson and colleagues in 2011 reflects the traditional division into megabat and microbat suborders. - should the list that follows be in the article at all, given that it has been superceded?
I think it's worth including; again, taxonomy always trails phylogenetic research. If you prefer we can rely on the subsidiary articles on the suborders and clades, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, I'd prefer it in a daughter article, but concede that this hasn't bothered anyone else I can live with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's leave it unless anyone else objects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, look nearly there - I still feel the first sentence of the lead reads a little oddly...but can't think of a way of rephrasing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, try that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is better. Could possibly be tinkered with more but not a deal-breaker for me anymore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check Cas Liber

edit
  • Earwig's copyvio clear (one false positive page - material on flickr)
  • FN #15 - used five times, material faithful to source.
  • FN #7- used four times, material faithful to source.
  • FN #8 and #9- used once each, material faithful to source.

Ok, looks ok to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Ref 78 is currently dead, but as its to a journal article I don't think we need to be too worried about the dead link. Therefore I shall be promoting shortly. Sarastro (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 [24].

Hours of Mary of Burgundy

edit
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Late 15th century book of hours commissioned by a lineage given to a mournful outlook. Following the death of her father, Charles the Bold, Mary of Burgundy became the wealthiest woman in Europe. Opinion shifts as to weather it was commissioned to mark his death or the agreement of her marriage to Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor. The opening 54 pages align to the rarefied and extremely bleak Black books of hours grouping, suggesting it was at first intended to mourn her father and later became a doury. Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I have not found anything on the wayback machine, and the images are are not replaceable from other sources. What are the options here; withdrawal? Id prefer that to removing all the 500 year old pd reproductions. Ceoil (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to find any other source that includes these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done now; replace most, and removed a small few. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi:
  • I would prefer to see "Kren & Mckendrick" formatting style used in the refs rather than "Kren; McKendrick". Use of the semicolon in the latter could easily be mistaken for two separate references.
  • In refs, does "Ingo" refer to Ingo Walther (Walther, Ingo)?
  • Missing ref for " Jenni; Thoss"
  • In Sources but not Notes: Campbell. Stokstad. Wiek.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have worked through these. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

I intend to review the content, but I'm dealing with sources first.

  • The references in the footnotes would be better formatted consistently with the rest, e.g.<ref>Kren, 21</ref> rather than "See Kren, 21"
  • Refs 5 and 37: page ranges should have ndashes not hyphens, per MoS
  • The language of foreign sources should be stated (Ulrike & Thoss)
  • The format of the Miller book is unclear and/or incomplete. Is this the book in question? "H. Miller" appears to be the publisher rather than the author/translator.
  • location missing from the Woods book

Otherwise, sources look in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. These have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

edit
  • "It was probably commissioned for Mary of Burgundy, then the wealthiest women in contemporary Europe" - what does contemporary Europe refer to? It's not linked or anything, so I don't follow
  • "Its production began around 1470" - Can't begin "around a date", I'd prefer "about" here instead or "circa".
  • "The book has been described as "undoubtedly...among the most important works of art made in the late middle ages...a milestone in the history of art and one of the most precious objects of the late middle ages".[3]" - Shouldn't you bracket the ellipses [...]? Minor nitpick I suppose
  • "and believed intended to mark Charles' death at the Battle of Nancy on 5 January 1477" - something about two verbs next to each other perturbs me
  • "The book of mourning theory" - I get what you're going for here, but I'd tweak it a bit since this reads like a discursive theory rather than a theory about the book itself
  • " Traditionally, pearls represent purity, a transparent veil signifies virtue, while red carnations were often used as symbols of love.[" - I'd add an "and" after purity
  • "Most attention is given to the innovative images" - I'd watch the passive voice here
  • "The text is preoccupied with the rituals of the only a, the litany and the rites of intercessory prayer." - the only a?
  • "seemingly viewed through a contemporary windowsill" - I'd drop the adverb

Always such a pleasure to read your work, Ceoil. This is a well-written and engaging account. Once these comments are addressed, I'll be happy to support. ceranthor 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceranthor, working through these, most are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ceranthor 00:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment from Tim riley

edit
  • Commission
    • First line – here we have the possessive form Charles' – American style; later we have Charles's – British style. Best to stick with one or the other.
    • "the most wealthy heiress" – I think "the wealthiest heiress" would be a more usual construction. Likewise with "the most wealthy nobility" later in the section.
  • Attribution
    • "to carry some of the lettering" – missing an "out", I think.
    • "van Lathem is attributed" – is it correct to use the lower-case "v" at the start of a sentence?
  • Design
    • "the rituals of the only a, the litany" – something has gone off the rails here, and I can't work out what the intended meaning was.
    • "are painting in such a way" – are painted in such a way? And this sentence veers from plural to singular rather confusingly: we need "the marginalia and drolleries … were sprinkled"; and "in a three dimensional manner that suggests…"
  • Miniatures
    • "viewed through a contemporary windowsill" – I don't think one can see through a windowsill ("a ledge or shelf forming the bottom part of a window frame" – OED). Just "window" is wanted here, I think.
    • "innovator in bring about" - innovator in bringing about?
  • Virgin and Child
    • "what seems to be the words" – perhaps "what seem to be the words"
    • "She is positioned an intimate" – missing an "in" I'd guess.
    • "shutted by boards" – shuttered by boards?
    • "without the usual intersession of saint" – I think we need "intercession" here, and perhaps an indefinite article before "saint".
    • "the figures scale and plasticity" – seems to be missing a possessive apostrophe: figures'.
    • "which as a very small panel painting, is yet" – I'd either lose the comma or add one to open the subordinate clause after "which".
    • "The figure's distance" – plural possessive figures' needed here, I think.
    • "that they are rendering" – that they are rendered?

I hope these points are helpful. – Tim riley talk 18:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, yes very helpful, and resolved now I think. Thanks very much for the review. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is so far out of my ken that I am diffident about expressing an opinion, but I mustn't sit on the fence: so, from an absolutely lay viewpoint I thought it clear, comprehensive and well and widely sourced. And of course beautifully illustrated. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course, and I add my support. Tim riley talk 15:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, for the review and edits. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Johnbod

edit

Nice article generally. I've done some touches. Points:

  • at the start it might be good to use some form of "luxury", the technical term for this sort of lavishly illustrated book. Perhaps "is a luxury book of hours completed in Flanders".
  • "No records survive as to its commission, but it was probably intended for private devotion." - seems unnecessary caution, as it was certainly "intended for private devotion", plus a bit of showing off to intimates.
  • "It was probably commissioned for Mary of Burgundy,..." - maybe work in the alternative, or say it was certainly for one of the Habsburg/Valois family. I can't see any mention of heraldry in the book, btw, beyond "recurring pairs of gold armorial shields". What arms are on them, if any?
  • "where the gold and sliver lettering is etched on black tainted parchment" - not etching surely? Just written in the normal way? Or another technique, like gilding? Black books of hours is not very clear on this.
  • "Given their novel visual appeal, they were probably more expensive and highly prized than more conventional books of hours, ..." - more unnecessary caution, I'd have thought, given the text is in gold and silver.
  • "The text is preoccupied with the litany and the rites of intercessory prayer." - there's a better way to put this.
  • "Obsecro te Domina sancta maria, a common biblical passage in contemporary illuminated manuscript illustrations of donors venerating the Virgin and Child" is not "biblical", but a "popular prayer of indulgence" - see here - I think always found in a prominent location in books of hours, I forget exactly where. Would be good to tie that down - I can help if needed. It is the place in the text next to which any donor portrait is likely to be found, which you don't exactly say, or not clearly .
  • "The window before her has two doors, shuttered by boards adorned with stained glass." Phrasing - windows don't have "doors" I think, and these aren't shutters, are they? The glass seems plain, of the round "bottle" or "bulls-eye" type beloved of mock-Tudor.
  • Does anybody say anything about the carpet? An interesting, apparently non-Oriental, design.
    Yes I am interested in this too. Unfortunately, so far the only book I've found that mentions cost €350, and doesn't deliver to Ireland. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Partial success: have been unable to find anything further on the carpet, but have added detail on some of the other accouterments and architectural features. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor, acquired the book around 1580." - ie at the age of about 13. Presumably it was given him as a personal prayer book when he reached a suitable age, from the family collection. Does anybody say this? How do we know? Is there an inscription?
Actually he was c.23 I see. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on the Austrian National Library is not highly clear, but it seems that in the 1720s it was still the Imperial Library, at best semi-nationalized, and housed in the Hofburg Palace. In other words the book always passed within the Habsburgs until their collections were donated to the Austrian nation, with a brief period as Napoleonic loot. If possible from the sources, this point should be made more clear. At present it sounds rather as if Matthias & later the library picked it up from bookstalls or something.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the observations and edits John. Am traveling ATM, but will be able to get to these over the coming days. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No ruish at all! Me too - all the best for the holidays, Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, made a few more changes- happy to support. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always John. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2018 [25].

Withypool Stone Circle

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of only three late prehistoric stone circles located in the southwestern English county of Somerset. It has been a GA since March and is probably as comprehensive as it can possibly be until archaeologists carry out further excavation of the site. Having brought another stone circle article—Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas—to FA status in April, I would like to try and achieve the same success with this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Usernameunique

edit

Looks good, and specific comments/suggestions are below; feel free to disregard stylistic points if you disagree, of course. Two general points:

  1. The significance of the site seems split between "Context," where you offer general suggested ideas for the reason being stone circles, and "Investigation," where you give Gray's suggestion that this one was used for cremations.
I kept Gray's suggestion apart because it does not seem to have gained any further support from later archaeological commentators; thus I thought it best to present it where it is rather than as part of the wider archaeological discussions of what stone circles were all about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Investigation" feels somewhat incomplete. It only covers up to 1909/1925, yet it is clear that there have been investigations at least up to 1989.
I've added an additional sentence mentioning Fowler's fieldwork in the 1980s. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"In diameter it measures 36.4 metres (119 feet, 6 inches) across."

"across" is redundant.
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location

"with some sources referring to it as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."

How about "and is sometimes referred to as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."
Doing so would switch the prose from active voice to passive voice. Personally, I'm not really fussed about that but there are definitely editors who urge us to use active voice wherever possible, deeming it more engaging for readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The site is at a height of 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."

How about "The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."
Good idea. Will change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"two and three-quarter miles south/south-west of Exford."

Every other measurement in the paragraph is converted, why not this one?
Quite right. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"east-southeast ... south/south-west"

Two inconsistencies: 1) east-southeast is separated by a hyphen, and south/south-west by a slash, and 2) southeast doesn't have a hyphen, while south-west does (there are many more examples with the hyphen later on in the article).
I've ensured that everything is standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"a range of different Bronze Age round barrows, or tumuli"

Are you using "round barrows" and "tumuli" are the same thing (if so, do you really need to use both terms?), or that both are visible (if so, use "and" instead of "or")?
These terms are synonymous and I was trying to convey that. Do you think that there is a better way to convey that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "a range of different Broze Age round barrows, a type of tumulus..." What's confusing about the current wording is that seemingly synonymous terms link to different articles about different (but very similar) things.
Agreed; I've altered the prose to your suggested variant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"although this can no longer be seen from Withypool Stone Circle itself."

Why not?
The barrow has been eroded to such an extent that it no longer sticks out of the top of the hill. I have amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The three Brightworthy Barrows ..."

This feels like a lot of red links. Are you thinking of creating articles on them?
Perhaps one day. They certainly all warrant articles, but I'm not sure that I have the time in the near future to go and create articles for all the different barrows on Exmoor. It would be a very time consuming process. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Also visible from the circle is a scatter of over thirty stones on the Westwater Allotment"

What is the significance of this?
It gives a description of the environment surrounding the stone circle; it is probably of importance for individuals interested in the phenomenology of the site? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westwater Allotment/Withypool Common

What are these?
The names of particular fields in the area. Do you think that this needs to be made more specific? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Context

"While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic—which took place with the transition from the fourth to the third millennium BCE—witnessed much economic and technological continuity..."

The part within dashes feels a bit repetitive. What about something like "While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic in the fourth and third millennia BCE..."
A good alternative. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and were instead replaced by circular monuments"

I don't think you need "instead." Also, "had been" might be better than "were."
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These include earthen henges, timber circles, and stone circles. These latter circles..."

Consecutive sentences beginning with "These."
Changed the latter to "Such". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These stone circles typically show very little evidence of human visitation during the period immediately following their creation. This suggests that they were not sites used for rituals that left archaeologically visible evidence,"

This is somewhat circular, seemingly boiling down to 'These stone circles show little evidence of human visitation. This suggests that archaeologists did not find visible evidence there.'
I see your point but am not really sure how to go about making changes. I wanted to keep the statement of observation apart from the statement of interpretation, although granted they can seem a bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggested"

Perhaps "suggests"?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are only two known prehistoric stone circles located on Exmoor: Withypool and Porlock Stone Circle. The archaeologist Leslie Grinsell noted that there was a circular stone monument on Almsworthy Common that was "probably" also the remains of a stone circle, although P. J. D. Way argued that it was a rectilinear stone setting, perhaps a series of parallel stone rows."

What about the possible one mentioned in the last sentence under "Location"?
I think that the issue is one of archaeological acceptance and recognition. There are only two sites in Exmoor that archaeologists unanimously recognise as having been stone circles. There are perhaps other examples which someone has suggested might be a stone circle, but here is no real consensus on that. Do you think that the wording could be amended to explain this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could say "unanimously recognised" or "generally accepted" instead of known, if you like. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is P. J. D. Way, another archaeologist? Do you really need to introduce each person who offers a theory, or is it enough to state what the theory is?
Generally, I find it best to attribute specific theories to the individuals who proposed them, where that is possible. Way was another archaeologist, and I have made that clear in the text now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Archaeologists have attributed these circles to the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age"

"dated" would be more precise than "attributed"
Should it be "Age" or "Ages"?
I've changed "attributed" to "dated" but I think it should remain "Age" rather than "Ages". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The creation of these different monument types might explain why so few stone circles were apparently created here."

Perhaps "might also explain", since you gave another explanation (bad rock) in the preceding paragraph.
Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

"Plan of the site as it existed in 1905 (after Gale 1906)"

Presumably you mean Gray 1906?
Do you really need in-text attribution, or would a footnote do (the "after Gale 1906" could be added to the image page instead)? If you prefer it in-text, what about using {{harvnb|Gray|1906}}?
You're right, this is not only wrong, but also unnecessary. I've removed it from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Conversely, the following year Burl..."

This is the first time you mention Burl, so perhaps a first name is warranted (but see comment above about including archaeologists' names).
Good idea; I've added some text introducing him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 0.1 metres (4 inches) in height, 0.3 metre (one foot) in width, and 0.1 metres (4 inches) thick."

.1 meter seems small enough that you might consider giving it in centimeters instead.
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

"The site was first rediscovered in 1898"

I don't think you need "first." How about "The site was accidentally rediscovered in 1898..."?
Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"His horse stumbled against one of the stones, and on further investigation he located other stones within the bracken."

The horse located the other stones?
Changed "he" to "Hamilton". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "stumbled on" rather than "stumbled against"
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"He proffered the suggestion that the circle had been the site of cremations,"

How about just "He suggested"
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In August 1909, Gray returned to the site for the first time in nine years."

But you just said that Gray went in August 1905, i.e., four years before August 1909.
I've had a good rummage, and unfortunately I cannot find the photocopy that I had of this source. Accordingly, I cannot at present check the information against the source to see if I made a mistake. What I will do is to simply remove "for the first time in nine years" altogether, which should deal with the problem at hand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He noted that the circle was in largely the same condition as before, but that the ling and whortleberry bushes around the site were more stunted than they had previously been."

Is the part about the ling and whortleberry bushes relevant? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a major point by any stretch of the imagination, but as the Reliable Source mentions it then we might as well do so too (or at least that was my thinking on the issue). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses and edits Midnightblueowl, and I agree with most of your comments. I've made a response to one comment above (tumuli/round barrows). Additionally, there are three minor points above that you did not respond to (see "This is somewhat circular...", "What about the possible one...", and "But you just said that Gray went in August 1905..."), and the two broader points at the top (numbered 1 and 2). But I look forward to seeing you address these points, and to supporting your nomination afterwards. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, thanks for responding to the two main points. Of the three issues withstanding, the most important is the apparent error about Gray returning to the site for the first time in nine years (also pointed out by J Milburn). There's also the line about there being "only two known prehistoric stone circles located on Exmoor" when in "Location" you suggest a possible third one, and, to a lesser extent, the somewhat circular sentence in "Context". --Usernameunique (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique; many thanks for your attention and your patience. I had some difficulty with these additional points (in one case I could not find my copy of the source, in others I'm just not sure that I have a good answer to your query), although I have nevertheless responded to each of them. Take a look an let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Midnightblueowl. Is this the source you need? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On clicking that link, I am reaching a page that states "This item is not available online ( Limited - search only) due to copyright restrictions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, it works for me; perhaps access varies by country. Email me and I'll pass it along. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the original source (although thank you for the email offer); it states that "Until August[...] 1915, [...] Gray had not revisited this circle since he made a plan of it in 1906[...] He found it in practically the same condition as it was nine years before, but the growth in[...]." So it seems that the error was in the article's use of "1909", which I have corrected to "1915". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that correction has been made. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit
  • The site was rediscovered in 1898 - excavated?
  • The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level.[3] - this to me is a random factoid, as is that it is 670.25 meters (733 yards) east/south-east of Portford Bridge - would remove.

Support - my minor quibbles notwithstanding. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look....

  • The village of Withypool is mentioned in the lead but not in the body. As well that first sentence is a bit repetitive - hard to do anything about but how about something like, "Withypool Stone Circle, also known as Withypool Hill Stone Circle, is a stone circle located within the Exmoor moorland in the south-western English county of Somerset. . Lying [distance and direction] from the village of Withypool, ..."
  • A range of different Bronze Age round barrows, a type of tumuli - shouldn't "tumuli" be singular here?
  • That's what I was thinking too. With identical structure, "a range of different seagulls, a type of bird" sounds completely right and "a range of different seagulls, a type of birds" sounds completely wrong. Not sure what rule of grammar to point to, though. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In every other instance I have tried substituting, it would be singular, and "a type of tumulus" sounds right. "Type" is singular, so the noun that follows should be singular too: "this type of tumulus" but "these types of tumuli". Simon Burchell (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

edit

Looks pretty good. Points:

  • Lead para 2: "Although there were a large number of monuments construction in Exmoor during the Bronze Age, ..." needs something
  • "This scarcity of large stones may explain why Neolithic and Bronze Age communities used small stones, termed "miniliths", ... This suggests that larger stones would have been available had the sites' builders desired, and that the use of miniliths was therefore deliberate." - perhaps one of the sources makes the point that miniliths might be all that a mini-workforce could handle?
  • "The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 10 centimetres (4 inches) in height, 30 centimetres (one foot) in width, and 10 centimetres (4 inches) thick.[5] The largest stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground..." Somewhat confusing - "height" seems to be taken from their current orientation, and so on. Is the 0.5 m a height? Might be better to clarify this, or just give all dimensions & explain the old + new positions clearly. Height + width + "thick" is odd - one would expect "length" or "depth" to make up the trio, but as I say, it might be best to abandon oriented terms.

Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the effort to read and review this one, Johnbod! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Simon Burchell

edit

Scanning through now, but at first view looks in fine shape.

  • In the footnotes, nos 23 and 36 are differently formatted from the rest, presumably because they are websites. I would list them in the bibliography (which you could rename as References), with the published repeated as author unless an individual author is identified on the website. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Simon, it is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

Very pleased to see this nominated here. I thought of you on Boxing Day when I had a short hike up to Birkrigg stone circle.

  • "Its diameter measures 36.4 metres" Its diameter is 36.4 metres, surely?
  • "used small stones, termed "miniliths", in the two" I might be wrong, but is this not an example of quoting words-as-words? If so, italics should be used.
  • "The largest stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground" Would "0.5 metres (1 foot 7 inches)" not be consistent with your other measurements?
  • "a sample was taken from one stone and under examination revealed to be a hard, pale grey" was revealed?
  • Do we know anything about Archibald Hamilton? "Archibald Hamilton, a local vicar" (or whatever) might be nice.
  • The only information available in Gray is "Mr. Archibald Hamilton, of the Western Circuit". That's not very helpful, unfortunately, and I'm not sure that there is much that we can add to the article on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fernacre and Stannon stone circle" These two names, along with the title of this article, seem to suggest three different naming styles for stone circles on Wikipedia. This may reflect different norms for different circles.
  • "Gray accompanied Hamilton on a visit to the site in August 1905 ... In August 1909, Gray returned to the site for the first time in nine years" ??
  • Have there been subsequent surveys of the site since Gray's? I assume so. Perhaps you could consider something like "The circle has been surveyed on several subsequent occasions, including...". Just a thought. I assume it's never been excavated? If you have a source, it'd be worth mentioning!
  • Should Gillings 2015 not be Gillings 2015a?

Very nice! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time and attention, Josh - I hope that you enjoyed Birkrigg! There are a couple of points I need to double check against the sources but aside from that I have responded to every point you have raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a shorter article, but I think that is appropriate for the topic, and have no objections to this being promoted. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit
  • I know this is difficult, but can we aim for an opening sentence that isn't essentially "Withypool Stone Circle is a stone circle near Withypool"? The reader can guess that from the title.
  • I disagree on this point. Some stone circles (like this one) are named after a local settlement, but others (like Stonehenge, Boscawen-Un, Devil's Quoits etc) are not. Thus, the present wording indicates that this particular stone circle is named for a nearby settlement while also simply giving a useful description of its location, which anyone wishing to visit the site would surely want to know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • likely religious sites, with the stones Don't use "with" to join two clauses like that
  • Around thirty small gritstones remain, which may once have held around one hundred" What may once have held 100?
  • south-western slope of Withypool Hill,[1] with some sources referring to it "with" again
  • 4.43 kilometres (two and three-quarter miles) Do we need to-the-metre precision? And why are we mixing numerals and figures?
  • 0.5m (1.6 feet) long, with two reported "with"
  • Is there a realistic prospect of those red links turning blue in the near future?
  • Where is Almsworthy Common on relation to Withypool? Especially important because it's red link.
  • Why the quote marks on "probably"? And whose opinion is that?
  • However, in contrast to the two known Exmoor circles "However" is frowned upon at FAC, and you don't need both that and "in contrast to"
  • western sides of the ring, with the stones perhaps "with"
  • His horse stumbled on one of the stones, and on further investigation located other stones The horse discovered other stones?
  • This is a sentence that has been changed a few times during the FAC process by various editors. I've switched it back to "His horse stumbled on one of the stones, and on further investigation he located other stones within the bracken." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • been the site of cremations, with the cremated human remains "with" again
  • Same question as Josh: have there been any other surveys or investigations since 1909?

Interesting little article. Nice work on quite an obscure subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read through the article, HJ Mitchell. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the changes you've made. I made on edit to get rid of a ", with" construction. The other one I pointed out is in the lead, likely religious sites, with the stones perhaps having supernatural associations. There are two remedies I'd suggest for that: just remove the word "with", or ; the stones perhaps [or "possibly"] had supernatural associations. As for policy, you won't find anything so specific in the MoS, but the FA criteria require professional-standard prose. The "with" connector is sloppy, and a tempting (but poor) way to splice two parts of a sentence together. It's popular with tabloid newspapers, especially in headlines because of space constraints. Tony mentions it on User:Tony1/How to improve your writing under "Two poorly used additives on WP". It happens to be one of my pet peeves, so I end up pointing it out at FAC quite a lot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've taken out the "with" from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my last outstanding concern, so support. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, every comment has been dealt with and the article has five statements of support. Perhaps time to promote (unless anyone else has any comments)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's just one outstanding comment from me, with regard to web refs (see above) - I'm very close to supporting too, just waiting for a reply. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

I'm inclined to agree that it this is probably ready for promotion, but I'd just like a response to Simon Burchell above, and also see if HJ Mitchell or Usernameunique have anything further to add before we promote. Sarastro (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I'd forgotten about this. I'll come back to it later today or tomorrow. I don't think there's anything fundamental but there are one or two things I'd like to see addressed but I have to be somewhere else right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, I've added my support now that the main issue has been addressed. Midnightblueowl, I've offered one suggestion above that you could also incorporate if you like, but it's not major. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2018 [26].

Winter War

edit
Nominator(s): Manelolo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Winter War, fought between Finland and Soviet Russia in 1939-1940 with the David barely holding onto its sovereignty against the Goliath. It was a FAC last time in 2009, closely missing promotion (after amazing article development by Peltimikko). Before that, it was approved as an A and a GA article. In 2010, its GA status was kept. I spent over 100 edits on it recently to 1) reformat the reflist correctly, 2) copyedit the whole article, 3) remove unverifiable information, 4) balance structuring, 5) address issues in last FA review etc. etc. Finland turned 100 years old a week ago which partly spurred my editing frenzy. Manelolo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Generally suggest including more legends in map captions
Will work on it later this evening. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Images with the PD-Finland50 tag should all include a US PD tag (some do, some don't) as well as information on the first publication of the image
Added US-PD to the one's missing it. First publication date would be when the archives were opened up and everything released to the public domain? Don't know the exact date, but assuming this was fairly quickly after the wars. If the pics are incompatible, an option is to replace them with definite CC BY 4.0 pics from here [27]. Shouldn't take more than a day. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, do you have a source indicating that the opening of the archive correlated with everything being released to the public domain? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red Army Finnish flag Winter War.png and Red_army_party_convention_winter_war.png as well most likely? No. 3 "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication" would be my fair assessment of the rationale. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, when and where was first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to boldly WP:TNT the picture situation since they would not clearly stand the test of time (or this review). I removed all the pictures with contentious licenses and started replacing them with higher quality CC BY 4.0 versions. Even found a couple of the ones already on the article. Will also search for Soviet pictures with a proper license. Apologies! I was completely oblivious to the outdated licensing and just concentrated on prose and refs. Manelolo (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ping me when images are stable and I'll re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, stable. Manelolo (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the new legends, but the XX/XXX etc is not visible at present size - suggest scaling up these maps
Thx Nikkimaria! Upscaled detailed maps by 2, overall maps by 1.5-1.75. Manelolo (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 21: Harvard error
  • Ref 82: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 90: lacks page number
  • Ref 91: ditto
  • Ref 104: ditto
  • Ref 171: hyphen issue
  • Ref 172: lacks p. number
  • Ref 178: hyphen issue
  • Ref 198: lacks p. number
  • Ref 202: ditto
Either fixed or removed as unnecessary.
  • English sources: I can't find citations to the following listed sources:
  • Lieven
  • Nenye
  • Sandser
  • Soviet Information Bureau 1948
  • Tuuri
Moved to further reading or removed.
  • Foreign sources:
*There are two instances in the sources of Leskinen and Juutilainen 1999 in the sources, but these don't seem to be differentiated in the citations Deleted the obsolete one.
*No citations to Manninen 2002 Moved to further reading.
*Why is the Krivosheyev book listed as a foreign source? The book seems to be in English. Good question, moved to English.
  • General: There is inconsistency in showing publisher locations in the book sources. Either show all, or none.
All removed.

Other than the above, the sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the review, I think I have addressed all of your issues. Manelolo (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack

edit

Will take some time to read it trough! More comments will follow.

  • and the nation had nearly solved its problems with extreme political movements.[46] – I don't like this sentence. First, it does not seem to be entirely neutral. Second, I do not feel well-informed here: The wording "solved" implies that the government did something actively to reject those movements, but what was it?
Hmm, amended to a bit more neutral/mellow. There were counter-actions by the government (surely, as with anything resembling a rebellion), but was trying to keep from it bloating.
  • The new Bolshevik Russian government was insecure, – Insecure about what? I am not sure what this should tell me.
Amended to "fragile".
  • The new Bolshevik Russian government was insecure, and civil war had broken out in Russia in November 1917. Thus, the Soviet Union (USSR) recognized the new Finnish government just three weeks after the Finnish declaration of independence.[51] – First, the wording "the Finnish declaration of independence" seems a bit repetitive here, as this declaration was just introduced. Reading flow would be nicer if at least "the Finnish" would be omitted. Second, can you really name the reasons why it was only three weeks? Wouldn't it be safer to write something like "Thus, the Soviet Union (USSR) abstained from military measures and recognized the new Finnish government just three weeks after the declaration"? To have "just three weeks" only as an additional fact?
Amended to a) reduce repetition & help flow b) explain that the recognition came so quickly because the Bolsheviks couldn't hold onto all of the former empire's ground
  • which culminated in a failed coup attempt in 1932. Thereafter the ultra-nationalist Patriotic People's Movement had a minor presence—at most 14 seats out of 200 in the Finnish parliament. – I am not sure what the latter sentence is supposed to add to the big picture. What has the minor presence of the ultra-nationalist Movement to do with the failed coup attempt? Did the coup attempt increase or decrease this presence?
Hmm, tried to rephrase it a bit for logical continuity, see if its ok!
  • You write relations between the two countries remained strained, but a few sentences later an almost identical sentence appears: However, relations between the two countries remained largely de minimis.
True, clunkier de minimis phrase removed.
  • Link to the full reference of "Hallberg 2006" not working
Fixed with source review!
  • From a Soviet point of view, the boundary with Finland reflected an internal border of the Russian Empire that was never thought to become an international boundary when drawn.[59] – Not sure, but this sentence appears quite strange to me. Of course, after they conquered Finland they never thought of giving it up again. This sentence seems a bit meaningless and could possibly be omitted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A late addition by another user. Since WP is a communal project, I did my best to keep it and integrated it into the sentence before it! See if better.

Thx for the review so far! I've tried to address your points! Manelolo (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I now read the article thoroughly and also compared with the version of the German Wikipedia, which is already featured. I now feel that there is still quite a lot to do here. I will start with the "Background" section.

  • these attempts ruined Russia's relations with the Finns – since Finland did not exist at the time, is "Finns" referring to Baltic Finns? If yes, please link it. Refers to Finns. Finland has existed since medieval times, though not as an independent state. Linked.
  • The 1920s and early 1930s proved a politically unstable time in Finland. – This sounds like these unstable times only started in the 1920s. I think they were the direct result of the civil war, which divided the society. True, amended to "The period after the Civil War till the early 1930s" for extra accuracy.
  • The whole fourth paragraph of "Politics in Finland" lists several details, but during my first read, I wasn't really able to interpret those, because context is lacking. And I think, for the context, there should be much more about the civil war, which was only very briefly mentioned previously. Wasn't it the civil war which devided the society into "reds" and "whites", and that the continuing rivalries after the vicotry of the "whites" were the origin of these political instabilities (and did also stressed the relations with the Soviet Union)? The article really should explain background like that. I would add 1) who was fighting who in the civil war, 2) what the outcome was of the civil war and 3) how the civil war affected the further development of the country. Addressed by adding a bit more detail per your suggestions.
  • In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions across the Soviet border, the Viena and Aunus expeditions. – Again, background is lacking. It would really add to the understanding of this war! What was the goal of these volunteer forces, why attacing the Soviet Union? You should mention Greater Finland in this context. Amended per suggestions.
  • The whole background section seems a bit biased: It has a section "Politics of Finland", but very little from the Soviet point of view. Especially: What were the exact reasons for starting the war in the first place for the Soviet Union? In the case war is braking out, Stalin thought there would be 1) a direct thread to Leningrad due to pro-Finland separatists in Karelia, 2) Finland and the Balticum would allow invasion into Russia, both via land and via see, 3) Coastal defenses of Finland and the balkan states would restrict the Soviet fleet. (Carl van Dyke, 1997, p. 13 ff) True, amended headings accordingly to be less biased. I am hesitant to add much more this section since there is an actual Background of the Winter War article linked under the heading. But added slightly more to Stalin's ambitions and views (incl. Van Dyke's assertion), expanded paragraph from lede into the Shelling of Mainila subheading on Soviet conquest motivation and amended points here and there.
  • The Soviet offer divided the Finnish government, but was eventually rejected. This seems to be lacking the reasons which lead to the rejection. The German article states: The Finnish secret service informed about the poor constitution of the red army, and this is why Finnish Foreign minister didn't believe the Soviets would start a war (Van Dyke, p. 19 ff). Added "but was eventually rejected with respect to the opinion of the public and Parliament." The claim by Van Dyke might be true for the foreign minister Eljas Erkko's opinion.
  • Just after the start of the war, the Finnish government resigned and was replaced by a new government under Risto Ryti, because of misjudgement of the thread of war. This is also an important bit which is missing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Mentioned in the Start of the invasion and political operations subheading. Amended it a bit: "In a further reshuffling, Aimo Cajander's cabinet was replaced Risto Ryti and his cabinet, with Väinö Tanner as foreign minister, due to opposition to Cajander's pre-war politics."[reply]

Thx again Jens Lallensack! I think I have addressed all of your concerns. Manelolo (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Manelolo, for carefully addressing all these points, the background section looks great now! Not much to criticize in the rest of the article, but I would like to add some points on the "casualities and losses" section. If you could address at least the neutrality issues, I will be happy to support!

  • In total, 25,904 persons died or went missing and 43,557 were wounded on the Finnish side during the war for a total of around 70,000 casualties. A detailed classification of dead and missing is as follows – for all these numbers, it might be a good idea to add if they are 1) official Finish numbers published immediately after the war; 2) estimations published by Finnish historians years after the war, or 3) numbers published by historians of foreign countries. This can be of importance for interpreting these numbers. True, once again! Added disclaimer that by Finnish historians after the war.
  • I would try to get as much neutrality as possible. You write "Dead and missing of the Soviet Union have been estimated around 126,875–167,976", and if I see it correctly, you cite it with a Finnish source. Perhaps add that this is an estimate of a Finnish historian? All of the Soviet estimates are by Russian historians, but Yuri Kilin is bilingual and thus one source is in Finnish. Added disclaimer that they are Russian historian estimates.
  • Also please provide the same information for the Finnish site (How many deaths on the Finnish site according to Soviet sources published directly after the war? Numbers are available in an 1972 article, which can be found online here). Added the official Finn figure from your site and ref (David Dallin). I did not add estimates of Finn deaths by Soviet sources since the article doesn't have them the other way around either.
  • The official Soviet figure in 1940 was 48,745 dead. In 1990, Mikhail Semiryaga claimed 53,522 dead and N. I. Baryshnikov 53,500 dead. In 1997, Grigoriy Krivosheyev claimed 126,875 dead and missing, and total casualties of 391,783 with 188,671[19] In 1991, Yuri Kilin claimed 63,990 dead and total casualties of 271,528; in 2007 he revised the estimate of dead to 134,000 dead.[20] – This is not that engaging to read. I would add an introductory sentence like "The official Soviet figure in 1940 was 48,745 dead. These numbers are disputed in both western and russian literature." I modified it a bit according to your suggestion, see if it works better.
  • 5,572 Soviet soldiers were captured – there are rumors that, after repatriation, these soldiers were killed by the soviet NKWD (Van Dyke, p. 191; Trotter, p. 263). Perhaps something to add. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Added with similar wording as the German Wiki and same refs.[reply]

Thank you immensely Jens Lallensack for very detailed scrutiny! I think I have addressed all of your points. In general on casualty NPOV: I modified it so that prose on both Finn and Soviet estimates are pretty similar. First official figure after the war and then estimates by respective national historians with disclaimers on the source. Cheers! Manelolo (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, great work! I am supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kges1901

edit

Good work on this article. One question:

Thx for the vigilant eye! Very true, it was the 150th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) that reinforced Taipale, must have been a typo. Manelolo (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: However, not all of these reforms had been completed by the time Germans initiated Operation Barbarossa 15 months later The entire first paragraph of the Soviet section is missing a citation, and may be incomplete.Kges1901 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cite had been accidentally deleted. Fetched it back from history. Manelolo (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns have been addressed. Next year I may create some of those redlinked Soviet division articles. Kges1901 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

edit
  • Reference no. 59 needs to be corrected. It states "p. 226]]". The right bracket needs to be removed. Done.
  • Chapter "Soviet–Finnish relations and politics" is a lengthy text that spans a period from 1918 to 1922, without any citation until no. 56. It states "After Soviet involvement in the Finnish Civil War in 1918, no formal peace treaty was signed. In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions across the Soviet border, the Viena and Aunus expeditions. In 1920, Finnish communists based in the USSR attempted to assassinate the former Finnish White Guard Commander-in-Chief, Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. On 14 October 1920, Finland and Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Tartu, confirming the new Finnish–Soviet border as the old border between the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland and Imperial Russia proper. In addition, Finland received Petsamo, with its ice-free harbour on the Arctic Ocean. Despite the signing of the treaty, relations between the two countries remained strained". At least one or two references for these claims should be included.
Added two sources dealing specifically with that period.
Hmm, Nikkimaria suggested upscaling during image review so that the legends (XX, XXX etc) are visible which I agree helps someone who wants to follow the pics in detail while reading. Thus, I shrunk them by 10%.

Thx for the review! Your points addressed so far. Manelolo (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chapter "Battles in Kainuu" has an image with a caption that says: "Soviet T-26 Model 1937 advancing aggressively, as described by the photographer, on the eastern side of Kollaa River during the battle of Kollaa". "Aggressively" is not a neutral word here. Who described it as such? If the author of the photograph called it as such, it should be in quotes. Amended as suggested.
  • Chapter "Soviet Air Forces" states: "The largest bombing raid against the capital of Finland, Helsinki, occurred on the first day of the war. The capital was bombed only a few times thereafter. All in all, Finland lost five percent of total man-hour production time because of Soviet bombings, considered a low amount. Nevertheless, Soviet air attacks affected thousands of civilians, killing 957.[146]". This is unclear to me: did 957 civilians die from bombing raids in all of Finland or just in Helsinki alone? Amended to be absolute clear: all of Finland is meant.
  • Several "red links" are visible in the article. Just to name a few: 155th Rifle Division, 104th Mountain Rifle Division, 123rd Rifle Division, 88th and 122nd Rifle Divisions. A couple of red links are OK, but since there are quite a few of them here, I would either write an article about them or simply unlink them.
Hmm, I was thinking the same, but then again Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Red_links & WP:RED suggest that red linking is a positive effect: "In prose, if it seems that the level of red linking is overlinking, remember that red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions." The five you mentioned are the only red links in the whole article and a lot of Soviet divisions have an article for them, so I surmised that this is an ok level in terms of redlinking and being a driving force for article creation. Opinions?
Good point, amended as suggested. Manelolo (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I noticed: you need to include a "Casualties" section in the article. Casualties are currently only mentioned in the Infobox military conflict. These figures should be added in the "Aftermath" section in the text, as well.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, too obvious for me to realize! The casualties are pretty well estimated already in prose in the infobox notes, so won't be a hassle. I'll work on it next year, now off to holidays. Cheers! (added temporary exclamations to your msg as a reminder for now) Manelolo (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added casualties to the Aftermath section within respective nation.

Thx 3E1I5S8B9RF7! All of your points have been addressed now. Manelolo (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support
All my concerns have been addressed. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Great job.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: Nice work with this article. It looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • please check for consistency regarding English variation. I see "centre" (British English) but also "center" (US), and "favorite" (US) Done.
  • per the above, "buildup" or "build-up"? Done.
  • per the above, "mockup" or "mock-up"? Done.
  • "The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Army" --> "The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Armies"? Done.
  • "guerilla" --> "guerrilla" Done.
  • In the Works consulted section is there an OCLC number that could be added for the Langdon-Davies work? Found and added!

Thx a lot AustralianRupert! All suggestions amended. Manelolo (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: We have two supports for this article, but I notice that Jens Lallensack commented that "I now feel that there is still quite a lot to do here". Given this, I think we either need Jens Lallensack to have another look, or we need further review (as that user seems quite inactive at the moment). Sarastro (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very occupied by real life lately, but I can now promise to finish the review until Tuesday, if that suffices! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sarastro1, four supports now as Jens' comments have been addressed. Manelolo (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: This is just about ready, but a few minor issues that I uncovered when doing the last few checks. We have a LOT of duplinks. I think someone needs to have a look at this as I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Additionally, a search reveals 17 instances of "however" which we should minimise (some reviewers would argue, perhaps with some justification, for their complete removal per WP:HOWEVER. Also, there are one or two "with noun plus -ing" constructions (see here) such as "With Stalin gaining absolute power through the Great Purge of 1938" which should be looked at. Once these have been tackled, we can promote. Sarastro (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, 1) all duplinks highlighting as red delinked 2) all howevers boldly removed and 3) fixed Stalin's with noun plus -ing, hopefully I found the other one too by searching for "with". Thx! Manelolo (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 [28].

Aberfan disaster

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A warm and Happy New Year to you all. The Aberfan disaster was a truly terrible and shocking incident: a slip from the spoil tips led to an avalanche of coal slurry down onto a small Welsh village. The junior school was the first major structure to be hit. Of the 144 people who died in the disaster, 116 of them were children, mostly between the ages of 7 and 10. Five of the adults who died were teachers at the school. Even fifty one years after the event, it is still an uncomfortable subject to read and write about. This has been re-written recently and a number of images from the official report became copyright free on 1 January 2018. At the time of PR I also contacted Iain McLean, an academic who has studied the disaster and its impact (and whose work is included in the sources). He was kind enough to read through the article and give advice and pointers on some points that needed clarification, which was extremely useful. – SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Lingzhi

edit
  • First two paragraphs of "Legacy" section are repetitive. I've never been keen on ending a paragraph, or a section, or especially an article with a blockquote; I've seen writing textbooks etc. that disallow it. But it's common practice on Wikipedia, where, as we all know, there are no rules. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
    • Thanks Lingzhi. I've removed/combined the paras in the Legacy section. I take your point on the ending quote, but I'm minded to leave it in for now; if others raise it as a problem over the rest of the FAC, we can always move it around. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How far was the tip from the school, from the farmhouses? How fast did the mining waste travel? Did anyone hear a noise before it hit the school? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have to do some digging on the distances, as the main sources don't include them: I'll keep looking and sort the remaining questions shortly. Thanks for looking over this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there laws regarding inspections? What govt agency, if any, had authority? Were there formal inspections, and what were the results? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No laws at all (only some internal NCB guidelines). The authority was the NCB, which was a state-owned industry; as such it would have come under whatever title the Department of Industry went under, but it was an arm's length relationship. We cover the NCB angle in the Background section. The sources make no reference to inspections. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "However belatedly, it was conceded by the NCB that the Aberfan disaster stemmed from their failure to initiate any policy in relation to the siting, control, inspection and management of tips"... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno how authoritative this is -- perhaps not very, as it was written by an eyewitness who was 8 at the time -- but "Aberfan" By Gaynor Madgewick has the distance from tip to village at 500 feet (or it that the vertical distance?) and the speeds at 30 to 40 mph... also destroying eighteen houses and a farm cottage. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm... as you say, an 8-year-old eyewitness isn't the best judge. The official report has 11-21 mph, and other reliable figures I've seen are within that bracket, so I'd rather go with that figure. In terms of the guess it could depend on where they are measured from (i.e., does the measurement start at the lowest part of the tip, the centre, or the further part that moved, and it it measured to the school or the furthest point the spoil reached (which could also be judged to be a couple of places, as spoil was constantly being washed down the hill by the rain/burst main). It could be quite a range of figures given the possibilities. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could the Mel Parry photo be used? Book above mentions... Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
  • "After the slide, the NCB stopped tipping tailings on number 7, but normal spoil continued to be deposited" An academic source (which also makes several other interesting points) states that the decision to cease depositing tailings was a direct response to the local council complaints (also mentioned in our article) ; the local council mistakenly believed that the danger from the tip came from tailings and not also from the usual waste. Is connecting those dots worth the trouble? It underscores a general lack of understanding of the problem, even though the problem had been correctly described as early as 1939 in a poorly-circulated NCB memorandum. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen this one before, and ignored it after I read "The London headquarters of the National Coal Board remained unaware that tips constituted a potential source of serious danger until after the Aberfan incident." As the tribunal stated the opposite, (and as the NCB admitted that it was the failure to initiate a relevant policy, rather than ignorance of the possibility), I find it hard to take the article seriously. – SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your reply. That article, "The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters" by Barry A. Turner, has been cited 885 times by other academic sources. 885 is very far from a puny number. It includes several observations about the causes of Aberfan... I firmly believe an article cited 885 times deserves a summary in Wikipedia... I certainly don't think we can dismiss such an article out of hand... In a few hours, I'll write a two- or three-sentence summary of those causes as described by Turner. Right now I gotta sign out for a while... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I've already said, I would rather not use an article that contains such a blatant and fundamental error – it is a poor piece of work that so utterly misrepresents something that is at the heart of why the disaster occurred in the first place. To say the NCB did not know of the problem is to completely invalidate what every other source has stated time and time again: the NCB were utterly culpable. If you think there are things in that article that are not in our article, then say what they are and, if they are suitable for inclusion, then alternative sources can be found, because this source is untrustworthy. - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, I'll write a summary. You can argue with it then. However, Wikipedia does not have the authority to dismiss oft-cited academic sources out of hand. If you can find sources that say this source sucks, then those latter sources grant you the authority to say it sucks (while citing the sources that say that)... meanwhile, just wait. The article is not quite as exculpatory as you seem to fear. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) OK. This needs tweaking. The first set of assertions comes from the whole damn Turner paper; since other groups are allowed to put 50-page page ranges in their Notes, I dunno if you wanna take the trouble to cite each page separately. The second set of quotes (about regulatory failure, with page numbers) are from "The origin and strange history of regulation in the UK: three case studies in search of a theory" by McClean:

Sociologist Barry A. Turner has identified approximately 36 human errors that led to the Aberfan disaster. Describing a pervasive attitude of "major institutional neglect" by the NCB, Turner cites failures such as: years of rigid and unrealistic disregard for the importance of the safety of the above-ground tips (as opposed to dangers within the mines); perfunctory decision making which ignored or minimized the likelihood and the scale of the emergent danger; dismissive attitude toward the complaints from Aberfan residents, discounting the validity of their concerns; incomplete and inadequate response to conditions which caused those complaints; and poor handling and distribution of existing information which accurately described the potential dangers. Moreover, according to Iain McClean, the general lack of existing regulations covering the safety of mine tips was a significant regulatory failure. In this respect the HM Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries "failed grievously to protect the citizens of Aberfan," (p. 18) and ".. There could be no clearer case of regulatory capture" (p. 23).

Sorry I gotta run again. I don't know what time I can lock back on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I remain unconvinced on this, but to bring this to a conclusion, I have added some of this information. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I see your side of this: the Turner article takes the Inquiry's assertions at face value, thus condemning the NCB at great length on many points, but going along with the key assertion that the top brass at the NCB never saw or read their own internal memos which very explicitly explained why the tips were dangerous. Turner essentially says they were arrogant fucking morons, and you say, yeah, maybe they were, but they were also fucking liars. I can see your point.... but Wikipedia can't. If you think they were arrogant fucking liars, you have to find a source (preferably a secondary source) that explicitly says they were arrogant fucking liars. Wikipedia doesn't know how to read between the lines. Moreover, you can't merely disregard a source that is right on eight counts but wrong (in your opinion, which may be correct) on one other key point... so thank you for adding that text... but the issue of whether they were "merely arrogant morons" or "dirty lying arrogant morons" needs a clear resolution with explicit sources.
      • Even the report questions the truthfulness of the NCB employees, and the NCB counsel asked that Robens's testimony was ignored, it was so full of untruths. SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ummmm. In a carefully prepared statement, Lingzhi said: "I am not saying that they are not liars." But I don't like the way that all the "culpability" dots have not been gathered together into one section. For example, Robens' remarks about the spring is located within the "rescuing the survivors" section. Yes, that's chronologically when he made the statement, but I think there is an overriding need to organize the article logically. The info about the springs is also scattered around in different sections. The Council's 1963 complaints are not explicitly connected to the slide that was labeled a "tailings run," nor to the subsequent decision to stop dumping tailings there (which Turner labels a "decoy", since the presence of tailings was not the key factor here). And no mention of the damning 1939 internal memo (mentioned in Turner). And I recall reading of larger slides that went unreported because no mine workers were injured (?); the NCB was not required to report unless colliers were hurt and would not have been legally required to report the Aberfan tragedy... The lack of manslaughter charges is dropped into a footnote.. And so on... My copy of the Inquiry itself is non-searchable and I surely do not have time to read it, nor even to read many more sources other than the two or three I've found/read in the past two or three days, but to my mind there must be many other things that could have been gathered together and presented... I also want to see WP:RS quotes that explicitly say "Robens was a liar", rather than letting Wikipedia readers draw that conclusion for themselves... The saving grace of this article is that it is relatively short, and so it is not unbearably taxing to read it all the way through and connect the dots for one's self. But I think Wikipedia should go out of its way to organize things in a way that puts all those dots together in one place. Please do persuade me otherwise; I am quite open to listening. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are several ways that articles like this can be structured, and we have gone with the way it is now, which is chronological for the most part, with the aftermath thematically and chronologically done. The fact that Iain McLean, probably the person with the most knowledge of Aberfan and the outcome, considers this covers the main points in an appropriate manner for an encyclopaedia – in others words, what is a supposed to be a summary of the main points – then I think we're on the right lines with what we have. – SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the bit about regulatory failure and regulatory capture, which in turn throws some shade on HM Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "public+inquiry"&ots=sv9Vq_oKJs&sig=y2JP0FPVDm96S3i0Hfbxz27XG8I&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=disaster%20%20Aberfan%20"public%20inquiry"&f=false Disaster Victim Identification: Experience and Practice says the BBC was making live broadcasts; the first disaster to be broadcast live. (p. 12) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there were live news broadcasts (with Cliff Michelmore), but I'm not sure that we need to go to that level of detail on something that is rather tangential. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, I think it is the sort of interesting historical tidbit that readers like to know, especially if it is true that it was the first live broadcast of a major disaster. [I am not sure that assertion is correct.] I won't argue over it, but I disagree. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nolo contendere. Congratulations on your successful bid for Featured Article! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my detailed comments are here and I have nothing further to add so far as the content is concerned. An excellent effort which, I imagine, was quite difficult to write. A sources review will follow in due course – I'm a little backed up at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As someone who's family comes from not very far away from Aberfan and who's mum was a primary school teacher, I have a particularly strong memory of this tragic waste of life, and would very much like to see this at FA status. I've had a read through and I can't think of anything obvious that I would change, as it seems all the issues were sorted out in the PR. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm afraid my rereading of this fine article hasn't been as complete as it usually is when I revisit for FAC an article I've previously peer reviewed. Reading it for PR made me so distressed, disgusted and angry that though I have now reread most of the article I have gone rather quickly through a couple of the sections this time round. But from my rereading, and my thorough scrutiny at PR, I am confident in supporting the promotion of this article. I echo Brian's comment above that it must have been difficult to write, and I congratulate SchroCat on undertaking it, and letting the facts speak for themselves. I am old enough to remember the Aberfan disaster, but at the time we knew nothing of the damnable cover-up and sheer lying that is here objectively set out with horrible clarity. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgement, and I add my support for its promotion. – Tim riley talk 16:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Jim I'm old enough to remember this well, and reading this reminded me of the extent of the tragedy and the gross negligence of the NCB. I saw nothing to criticise in the writing, well done for taking this on Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have been following the development of this article which has been on my watchlist for several years. I remember the disaster and the aftermath. The nominator should be applauded for bringing this important contribution to FA level.Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

A few very minor points:

  • Aberfan (Stanford University): suggest you extend title to "Opening Night! Opera & Oratorio Premieres – Aberfan"
  • Aberfan: The Fight for Justice (BBC) appears to be listed twice
  • Page no. for Strawbs Revival: South Wales Evening Post

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit
  • (no relation to the inquiry chairman) Is this really necessary? Davies is a common name. In 1960s South Wales, I'd have thought it would be very common, so not unusual that two people involved had the same surname.
    • It was there for those who don't know about the seemingly small number of Welsh surnames, but I've removed it (on the grounds that if there was a relationship, we would have made it clear) - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • was taken by them, it was thought Can we try to use the active voice here?
  • When the counsel for the families, Desmond Ackner, QC, attacked Robens for making the statement, saying it was "a public scandal" What happened here? The sentence seems to terminate abruptly. A gremlin from re-drafting perhaps?
  • Nine employees of the NCB were censured Can we say a bit more about who these individuals were, since the inquiry specifically singled them out? Not necessarily their names, but their job titles and the role the inquiry felt they played could be a useful addition.
    • If we go down that route, there is quite a lot of information to include (even if we keep each of the nine very brief). There are two options here and here, which are worth looking at before deciding which way to go. Option 3 could be a table, but I'm not a fan of them in prose articles, particularly when we can work the info into paragraphs a la option 2. Thoughts? – SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine employees of the NCB were censured suggest swapping the order with the previous sentence so it's clear which action is being referred to (ie not the slurry washing down the streets)
  • According to McLean and Johnes, "the general commitment to public safety that the Tribunal had envisaged was not implemented" Do they specify what further provisions the government could or should have made?

I'm picking nits, really. I feel obliged to find something to criticise at FAC! This is another excellent piece of work. You have a knack for picking interesting (albeit in this case tragic and uncomfortable) bits of history. I'm not nearly old enough to remember the event itself but I watched a lot of the television coverage of it around the anniversary in 2016 so I'm very glad to see it here and getting the thorough treatment it deserves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Some images have alt text, others do not. For consistency it should be one or the other but this is not an issue over which it is worth delaying promotion. Sarastro (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2018 [29].

Black-shouldered kite

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article on another Australian raptor is comprehensive and should be within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image review

oops, added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll review this soon. First, the images seem a bit samey, not that we have many alternatives, but here's a head-shot[30], and a photo of some kind of aerial battle.[31] Perhaps this art[32] could be useful for spice under taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the eyes of the head-shot one are too pale (overexposure?) and misleading. Added teh Gould illustration. Will check the other Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no separate status section, as in practically all other FAs?
added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meaning "armpit"" Why?
rationale for name added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems the image of the immature would fit better under description, where its differences are mentioned?
moved now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only present some people mentioned under taxonomy and not others.
aligned them now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described Elanus notatus" What does it mean?
clarified now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinguish it from the Eurasian E. caeruleus and American E. leucurus" Why no links or common names?
added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give scientific names after common names for some species mentioned, but not others.
added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the mice this bird eats an introduced species? if so, may be interesting to note as one of the things that have benefited the bird after human colonization.
  • Oh, I see this was mentioned in the intro (which I always read last) that the mouse was introduced, could be mentioned in the article body.
added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both ise and ize in the article.
all should be '-ise' now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You still have a section named "Vocalizations". FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fixed now - I was cntrl-f "ize". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention the eye markings in the intro.
added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • When the publisher location is London, you don't need to add "United Kingdom" or "UK" (6 and 24)
For completeness and aligning with other locations...not sure if London, Ontario has any publishers...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think "London" is assumed to be UK unless otherwise stated – as per your refs 2, 4 and 8 for example. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
removed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 lacks a publisher location
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38 is a self-published work. WP:RSSELF allows this "when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Can you confirm that this is the case?
Aah, that is Gordon Beruldsen, whose bird egg book is/was widely referenced. Yes he is an authority Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz

edit

Taxonomy

  • "The black-shouldered kite was first described by English ornithologist John Latham in 1801, as Falco axillaris." Why cite the book review by Penhallurick?
I was looking for a place where someone debunked Mathews' rejecting axillaris, but found the original so ref is unneeded. Now removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention that the species is monotypic - no recognised regional variation.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "The leading edge of the inner wing is black." From photos it seems that it is the leading edge of the outer wing that is black.
not sure where that came from, but yes should be "outer" and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalisation

  • "The call has been confused with that of a silver gull.[26]" Surprising, compare here and here. Do other sources mention this?
no, and given the dissimilarity best I think to just drop this sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • For the black-winged kite the eggs are laid at 2 to 3 day intervals and hatch asynchronously. Is this info available for the black-shouldered kite?
intervals added. no info on asynchronous hatching found Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • 33 Chan, Melinda - This doesn't appear suitable as a RS - it seems to be a blog by YC Wee (the images are credited to Chan Yoke Meng)
replaced with HANZAB page- was also the wrong species. Must have overlooked that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supported above. Another excellent article. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

A nice article on a subject about which I have no prior knowledge. I'm heavily leaning to support, but three points caught my eye, none of which are much to worry about:

Lead
  • You tell us twice in the opening three sentences that the bird "is a small raptor".
yikes - removed second one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "bright- or dull yellow". As "bright-" is hyphenated, shouldn't dull also be? (or should bright not be hyphenated?)
removed hyphen Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution
  • "Australian kites may be sedentary or nomadic, and generally occur in open grasslands": I'm not sure "occur" is the right word (unless that's the standard in ornithology). "Live" or "are found" or similar seems more natural – although don't push the point if there is a good reason for "occur".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon

edit

Nice work. Again. Very little to quibble with, not being an expert in birds:

  • However, Schodde and Mason -> when was this?
1980, added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vocalizations: any sound files available?
none on commons sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • almost exclusively on mice ... and other mouse-sized mammals account for over 90% of its diet -> these 2 statements do not quite work for me. Almost exclusively suggests 90+ % mice, not also including other mammals. I think almost exclusively is too strong
actually the point is a tad labored - removed the offending segment with no loss to meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When hunting the kite -> a comma perhaps?
added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. I might be able to do a source spot check tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: that'd be great. Amazingly this FAC has rocketed along after my last two moved very slowly.....cheers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are my results:

  • all I spotchecked (ref #2 #3 £6 #23a #23b #23l) all check out fine
  • London: Leigh & Sotheby is once without and once with initials
  • ref #6c is ok but should include page 202
  • Lerner, Heather R. L. -> here a space between initials but elsewhere not, e.g. Kirwan, G.M. I prefer a space, but don't mind either way
  • #10 seems to be the only book with a title in lowercase
  • #15 doi link doesn't work, maybe the doi is wrong?
  • #18 (and others): there is no Higgins 1993, only a Marchant & Higgins 1993, as far as I can see
  • would be good to use archive links for sources that may move/disappear

Edwininlondon (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, the doi is here, and cutting and pasting this doi back into article doesn't work. No idea why Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
others all done apart from archiving webpages - just reading about it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weird one that doi. Overall a fine piece, which I hope to see on the main page one day. My support, with caveat of not being expert in birds. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Some images have alt text, others do not. For consistency it should be one or the other but this is not an issue over which it is worth delaying promotion. Sarastro (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2018 [33].

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bring you—just for a change! ;)—a war memorial. This one's a relatively obscure one given its location in the very centre of London. It's dedicated to members of the Civil Service Rifles, a regiment made up of British civil servants, who died in the First World War. It's not a huge article because everything seems to have proceeded reasonably smoothly (barring a change of architect early on), which doesn't leave any great campaign or controversy to write about. It's had a very helpful A-Class review at MilHist and I think it's up to scratch, but I'll be very glad of any feedback. Here's to my last FAC of 2017 and hopefully my first FA of 2018! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Dank

edit

Support Comments from Usernameunique

edit

Lead

  • "was placed inside it." I don't think you need the "it."
    • Fair enough; gone.
  • "part of a national collection". What exactly is a "national collection"?
    • As far as I can tell, it's a term Historic England have made up for a group of closely related listed buildings (eg, Wren's churches).

Background

  • "the war had a profound effect on him". This seems a bit airy. Why? In what way(s)?
    • He travelled to the battlefields during the war and was heavily involved in getting the Imperial War Graves Commission off the ground; from letters he wrote it's clear that he was very deeply distressed by what he saw and by the scale of casualties, to the point that he spent the next several years making war memorials either pro bono or for a very modest fee as well as consulting for the IWGC and designing several of its monuments and hundreds of its cemeteries. But that's mostly out of scope for this article. When I've finished the set, I'm going to write something like "Edwin Lutyens and war memorials" and link it from all the individual memorials so that there's a proper answer to questions like those.
      • I see your point about scope, although I find it quite interesting that the architect actually visited battlefields of the war he commemorated. I don't think that that fact, worded along the lines of "clients, but travels to the battlefields during the war for [one- to three-word reason for travels] had greatly affected him, and", would be too tangential.
  • "for the Cenotaph on Whitehall". Do you need two separate links? What about "for the Cenotaph on Whitehall"?
    • I think so, because not everybody realises that Whitehall is the name of the street (this being London, they couldn't just call it "Whitehall Street").
  • "which became Britain's national war memorial". Minor point, but I think of "became" as implying growth, whereas an object either is or is not Britain's national war memorial, and does not grow into either. Having some déjà vu here (your point about "rose" in the Nigel Williams review).
    • It wasn't built as a national memorial per se. It became that later.
  • "These were among the least controversial". Is "controversial" the right word? It seems to contrast a bit with what you just described as his popularity. Maybe something about encountering less friction.
  • "properly named the ... Civil Service Rifles)". This is confusing, can you put quotation marks around the full name?
    • Done.
  • "at their annual camp". Not sure what an "annual camp" is. A time to roast marshmallows and tell scary stores over a campfire?
    • Essentially, but in army uniforms. I've linked it to military camp but even that's not much use.
  • "in August 1914. The battalion was mobilised on 4 August 1914". How about "on 4 August 1914. The battalion was mobilised that day"?
    • Good point. Rewritten.
  • "having lost 1,240 officers and men killed". So the officers weren't men? Also, "killed" is redundant.
    • Not in a military sense, no; the "men" are the private soldiers and NCOs (some memorials explicitly say "officers, NCOs and men", others just say "officers and men". Agreed on "killed".

Commissioning

  • "After the war, the demobilised soldiers formed an Old Comrades Association and discussion". Suggest moving the comma to after "Association".
    • I've put another comma in there but I think we need the one after "war"
  • "The association formed ... regimental history." I'd split this in two.
    • Done.
  • "established a fund to raise £750". Isn't a "fund" something with money in it, not an empty piggy bank?
    • I think the use is legitimate, but changed to "appeal" nonetheless.
  • "The committee". Should "committee" be capitalized?
    • "Committee" itself isn't a proper noun so I don't capitalise it (cf. "army"), which is also my reading of the MoS; some people do, but I suppose it's a stylistic choice.
  • "at the north end of the quadrangle at Somerset House". You could avoid the at/at by saying "the Somerset House quadrangle".
    • I think that's a bit chatty, which is worse than a minor prose flaw, but I've changed one of the "at"s to an "in".
  • "At some time". Probably don't need the "At".
    • Done.
  • "the committee replaced Baker with Sir Edwin Lutyens". Why? It seems like the Baker design was well on its way, why the 180?
    • We don't know. All we have is a letter from Baker to the Office of Works, and then later another letter from Lutyens to the Office of Works. Had the site not been a government building (thus requiring the consent of the office), all record of Baker's involvement might have been lost.
  • "To this the Office of Works objected, concerned about its effect ... in the quadrangle." Another run-on. Also, I think "its" technically refers to the Office, not the monument.
    • Fixed.

Design

  • "with classical mouldings in Portland stone approximately 4.9 metres (16 feet) tall." The mouldings are 16 feet tall?
    • Fixed.
  • "the dates of the First World War." Do you mean the start and end dates?
    • Yes, done.
  • "The flags were originally copper but were later replaced with carved stone." Any idea when?
    • Sadly not. Even Historic England don't seem to have a date.
  • "Lutyens intended his design to be sympathetic". Are you sure about "sympathetic"? What about something else like "harmonious"?
    • I can live with that.
  • "The dedication DDDDDD on the front (north) face, while the south face reads". How about "On the front (north) face is inscribed the dedication DDDDDD, while the south face reads"?
    • And that.
  • "The dates of the war". See above. This is more problematic after looking at the next sentence; I read "dates" as meaning dmy dates, not years.
  • "The dates of the war (in Roman numerals) are inscribed on the plinth". How about "The dates of the war are inscribed on the plinth in Roman numerals"?
    • I've rewritten and clarified this.
      • Still recommend scrapping the parentheses in favor "are inscribed below the urn in Roman numerals," but up to you.

History

  • The/The/The/The starts off the first four sentences.
    • Good point. Fixed.
  • "By that time ... old regiment." Another run-on.
    • Also fixed.
  • "and amalgamated". Should be "and had amalgamated".
    • I'm not sure about that; certainly I'd have thought a regiment "is amalgamated" (by a higher authority), not that it amalgamates itself. Either way, the full sentence reads had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated so I think it's fine.
  • The whole first paragraph feels a bit choppy and unstructured.
    • I've reworked it a bit and split it.
  • "and the government leased parts". What about "was leasing"?
    • Fine.
  • "During the process". What process?
    • Clarified.
  • "Walter Humphrys". When did he die?
    • Not in the sources, and it would feel a little tangential to include it unless it had some effect on the memorial.

History pt. 2

  • "By the time of the ceremony, the Civil Service Rifles had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated with the Queen's Westminster Rifles to form the 16th Battalion, the London Regiment (Queen's Westminster and Civil Service Rifles) during post-war reorganisations, though veterans were determined to maintain the traditions of the old regiment." Suggest "By the time of the ceremony, post-war reorganisations had reduced the Civil Service Rifles in size to two companies and amalgamated it with the Queen's Westminster Rifles to form the 16th Battalion, the London Regiment (Queen's Westminster and Civil Service Rifles), though veterans were determined to maintain the traditions of the old regiment."
    • Works for me.
  • "Retired members continued". Perhaps "Surviving" instead of retired. It's unclear whether you mean retired from the war, or retired from their post-war vocations.
    • Good point.
  • "were aged in their nineties". Do you need "aged"?
    • I thought it seemed too informal without it, but you're at least the second person to raise it, so perhaps not.
  • "was leasing parts". Come to think of it, perhaps "was leasing out parts" would be best.
    • I don't think this is necessary.
  • "When the requisite legislation". What legislation? Necessary for what? You could get away with just saying "When the subject arose in
    • That's how I was thinking of doing it. Should have gone with that first time.
  • "reached the House of Lords, a former member of the regiment". The House of Lords used to be part of the regiment?
    • Reworded.
  • "and subsequent restructuring". Should this instead be "and a subsequent restructuring" or "and the subsequent restructuring"?
    • I think it's clear from the context (resulting from further amalgamations following...) that it means restructuring subsequent to WWII.

Overall Looks pretty good. Most of the above are very minor points and suggestions. The main things are three run-on sentences, and the first paragraph under "History" that feels disjointed. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking a look, and for your detailed comments! Please have a look at my responses and let me know if there's anything you feel needs more attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, HJ Mitchell. I've responded above to two points inline, and created "History pt. 2" to address the reworded section; as you've undoubtedly seen, I've also made a few edits to the article. Of all of that, the only thing that should be seen as more than a mere suggestion is the part about "requisite legislation". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've addressed everything now, except the bit about Lutyens. It's an oversimplification to suggest that it was one visit to France that had such an effect on him, and it's hard to go into any great detail while staying on-topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, you've got my support. Good point about "enlisted," I didn't know that was a US term. I suppose you could say "other men" instead if you want. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

edit

I could see little that Usernameunique hasn't already covered, and those points seem readily actionable, so I'm happy to support. Just three extra points

SupportComments from Tim riley

edit

This is a lovely article, and I shall be supporting it, but first a quibble or two.

  • Background
    • "The Civil Service was headquartered in Somerset House" – I don't think that will do. S.H. was an important government building, but insofar as the Civil Service had a headquarters in 1924 it was at HM Treasury in Whitehall, or possibly at the newish Cabinet Office next door to it. You could reasonably describe S.H. as one of the most important government offices or something like that.
  • Commissioning
    • "after Lutyens … claimed that…" – I'd be cautious about "claimed". It carries overtones of unjustified assertion. If the sources support Lutyens's assertion, then perhaps "discovered" or "showed"; if not, then perhaps a neutral word such as "contended" or "argued".
  • Design
    • "…the Union Flag…" – linked here but not in the lead.
  • History
    • "…the Treasury authorised…" – I might either link this to HM Treasury or expand the name to something like "the British Treasury". Just a thought, and I won't press the point if you demur.

Those are my few – very minor – points. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, and I look forward to supporting in the next day or so. May I say, that as someone who has lived in London for most of the last 50 years I am touched to find an article on a memorial I didn't even know about? I shall go and see it in January. Tim riley talk 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Tim. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and equally glad that it's inspired you to go and see the memorial. If you're interested, the article is part of a series; I have a handful more that I'll be bringing through FAC eventually (including two memorials within half a mile of this one). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My small quibbles having been attended to I am very happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I am glad to have read it. Tim riley talk 17:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 8: In what is becoming my signature quibble on MilHist articles (see candidate immediately below), may I point out that "Imperial War Museums" is a plural entity? Otherwise, sources are in excellent order and of appropriate quality and reliability. 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I was hoping you'd get round to this - my grandfather's regiment in the war (although he was transferred to the 6th Westminster part way through 1918), and one I've visited a couple of times. An excellent article that fully meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support, and wonderful to hear about the family connection. If I'd known, I'd have put it higher up the list. It seems it was quite common for Civil Service Riflemen to be commissioned out or transferred; I suppose the skills involved in administering a country were useful in administering an army. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - have read through the article and have nothing to add to the above that is actionable. Do the sources indicate what form Baker's proposed memorial took (other than its proposed location)? It is a great pity that it seems so hard to find an image anywhere that shows the memorial in its original location (might have to dig around in the Illustrated London News again). The internet is now awash with pictures of the very photogenic dancing fountains and (seasonal) ice rink that is where the memorial used to be. Maybe include a picture of the original location as it now looks to give readers an idea of its former location? There must be a picture out there somewhere (even if not freely available)! (Is there anything in any of the printed sources?) FWIW, the Lords debate can be read in all its excruciating details starting here (and then search around that). That Somerset House bill got many readings. An, um, 'interesting' insight into how such things are debated in the Lords. One final thought: were any of the casualties notable? Might be worth mentioning that, though if there is no record of the names on the list (other than the actual scroll itself inside the memorial), it might be difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couple of snippets from the reports in The Times:
      • Thursday, Jan 17, 1924; pg. 9; Issue 43551: this report states that there were plans to produce a souvenir booklet "containing a photograph of the memorial, the order of ceremony for unveiling, and a list of killed whose names have been recorded on a parchment scroll placed within the monument". Might be worth seeing if any archives or museums have copies of this souvenir booklet (the book Civil Service Rifles in the Great War: 'All Bloody Gentlemen' cites this souvenir booklet as a source). Certainly there will likely be a roll of honour maintained/published somewhere in connection with the memorial for people to view or read later. There appear to be three copies of this booklet held by the Imperial War Museum: [34], [35], [36].
      • The full unveiling report in The Times has extra details that may or may not be worth including (you can understand why some secondary sources don't report everything in full detail, but on the other hand, not all memorial unveilings were reported in great detail - so having extra bits like this may be a bonus): Monday, Jan 28, 1924; pg. 7; Issue 43560:
        • The Prince of Wales wore the service dress of a Colonel of the Welsh Guards
        • Also present were E. G. H. Cox, William Thwaites, Robert McCalmont, Alexander MacWhirter Renny, Hugh Valdave Warrender, William Henry Eric Segrave.
        • Hymns sung: O Valiant Hearts and For All the Saints.
        • Along similar lines, do you want to include the playing of the Last Post and Reveille at the unveiling ceremony (the national anthem was also sung, possibly this was only because the Prince of Wales was there)?
        • It seems the correct spelling of "W. H. Kirby" is actually "W. T. Kirkby" (possibly William T. Kirkby, not sure). The Times reports 'Major W. T. Kirkby' as the chairman of the memorial committee. The Wikipedia article states 'Major W. H. Kirby' (confusingly, someone exists of that name). I think it is W. T. Kirkby.
        • The article in The Times concludes in small print with a list of others present (we have articles on the aristocrats, less so on the senior civil servants): Lord Novar, Lord Hampden, Lord Bury, C. B. Thomson, Sir Herbert and Lady Creedy, Sir Malcolm and Lady Ramsay, Sir Amherst and Lady Selby-Bigge (of the Selby-Bigge baronets), Sir Horace and Lady Hamilton, Sir Sydney and Lady Chapman (possibly Sydney Chapman (economist)), Sir Richard and Lady Hopkins (possibly Richard Hopkins (civil servant)), Lieutenant-Colonel R. C. (Rowland Charles) Feilding, and Lieutenant-Colonel C. (Cyril) de Putron.
      • As The Times reports in excruciating detail the movements of the royal family and those with them ('attending them'), there is a brief snippet in the Court Circular the day following the unveiling (Monday, Jan 28, 1924; pg. 13; Issue 43560) to say that Piers Legh was there as well. FWIW.

Lots of detail there. Hope some of it helps. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Carcharoth: Thanks very much for the support and for the extra details. I think a few of those are a bit too far from the main topic to include here, but some I've incorporated into the article. Can I have the author and title for the 28 January Times article? I'm not aware of any of the casualties being notable (there's no mention of any VC recipients, for example). There's a photo at the back of Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War of it in the quadrangle, complete with civil servants' cars parked around it, but I haven't seen any others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is clear that senior civil servants were there, but whether it is because they were senior civil servants or because they served in the unit in the war (or both) is unfortunately not clear. The title of the article in The Times is 'Civil Service Rifles War Memorial'. No author. I didn't give all the details. The choir of St Clement Danes was there, with the rector William Pennington-Bickford, and the regimental band. The picture of the unveiling ceremony in the ILN gives an idea of the scale of the ceremony. Carcharoth (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again. I would expect that very senior civil servants probably didn't fight in the regiment, at least not in WWI; they're likely to have been too old and too important in their day jobs, but that's just speculation. I've added a little on the music. Is the ILN photo usable? It's too late for PD-1923 but could be expired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018 [37].

Gloucestershire Regiment

edit
Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the UK's more unassuming regiments, now history, which was unique for wearing a back badge on its headdress after one of its antecedent regiments fought back to back in Egypt. It fought in the Second Boer War and both world wars, and achieved for itself both fame and the American Presidential Unit Citation at the Battle of the Imjin River during the Korean War. A peer review did not receive too much attention, but the article received a closer inspection in its successful MilHist A class review. I'm hoping it's FA quality now. Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

For the record, I replaced the lead image again, and added an image of the back badge at the bottom of the infobox, after first checking with Nikkimaria here that there was no issue with licensing. Factotem (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

All looks very good. Some suggestions:

  • Don't abbreviate "March" in the infobox
  • anniversary of the 61st Regiment's victory at Chillianwallah when overseas, or on the anniversary of that regiment's victory at Salamanca when at home What dates were these?
  • "The name arises from an incident in 1764" Use "arose" to keep in the past tense
  • "also awarded to the 1st and 2nd volunteer battalions" Should be "Volunteer Battalions"
  • "the only German offensive that year" should be "the only German offensive on the Western Front that year"
  • The link for "Entrenching Battalions" should span both words ie Entrenching Battalions
  • Link George VI, Soviet Union
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have accommodated all your suggestions into the article. Factotem (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • General point: A number of the refs carry sometimes lengthy additioinal texts. If these texts merely summarise what's in the source, thay aren't necessary. If they are offering further information on material in the sources, such explanations would be better placed in the article text, or in the "Footnotes" – otherwise why have a "Footnotes" section?
    I've moved nearly all refnotes into article text, footnotes or ether. Would you indulge me the three short refnotes remaining?
  • Refs 33, 34, 35: Surely, "The Long, Long Trail" is the name of the website, not part of the title? There is also a reliability issue with this website, as it appears to be "a personal website, born in 1996 and developed as a hobby ever since". Although the site's writer is a published author, the site itself does not seem to have editorial oversight or professional moderation.
    I'm surprised that it's not considered reliable, given that the author is now a full time researcher, but the information sourced to that website was not essential to this article, and I removed it.
  • Ref 57: You need to state that the publisher of the website is The National Archives. In what part of the website are the casualty figures quoted in the accompanying note to be found?
    Good catch. I wrote that on the first attempt at this article in 2016. I remember thinking then that it won't pass muster, but took a long break and forgot about it. Replaced with a better source.
  • Ref 84: being very pedantic, "Imperal War Museums" is plural
    Pluralised.
  • Ref 88: You don't need a retrieval date for a link to a facsimile book. The book, not the facilitating website, is your source.
    Removed.

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably make an argument that the Long, Long Trail is reliable. I've seen it cited by several other sources while researching war memorials. But I'd still be sceptical of anything I couldn't source elsewhere (besides minor details that might have been neglected by other sources in summarising). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's not reliable, but the question is whether it meets our quality standards, given that it is a confessed hobby site and the work of a single writer. If there is evidence that it has been recommended by an authorative source such as a journal or institution, then it could pass muster, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

edit


  • Support I have been following this article as I served as an officer in the regiment just before its amalgamation. I made a few edits when it was quite a short start class article in 2014 and have been very impressed by the edits made by User:Factotem who took over from the already sterling work done by User:Dormskirk. I believe that it meets the different criteria and also agree with the removal of the non-free image that I added to the article following the explanation given by the nominator. From my personal knowledge of the regiment (my father also served with the Glosters) I believe the information given is accurate and comprehensive. Well done! Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2018 [38].

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petropavlovsk spent more time under construction than she did in service as she was sunk early in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 after striking a mine. While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov. The article just completed a MilHist ACR and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose and any jargon that needs linking or explaining and look forward to working with reviewers who find any such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support. I've read the article twice and found nothing to prevent supporting. Well-written and comprehensive. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments from Usernameunique

edit

Lead

  • Feels a little bit short in general, and what you just said above introducing this article ("While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov.") should be included.
  • "She participated in suppression". Do you mean the suppression?
    • Indeed.
  • "near Port Arthur." For those that don't know where Port Arthur is/was (me included), can you add a brief clarification (e.g., "Port Arthur, in Northeast China.").
    • Good idea.
  • "Casualties numbered 27 officers and 652 men". So the officers weren't men?

Design and description

  • "12-inch guns and the 8-inch guns were replaced". Should probably be a comma after "12-inch guns".
    • I really don't see the point of the comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be to immediately indicate that "12-inch guns and the 8-inch guns" isn't what was was made to be more powerful and higher-velocity; otherwise you have to get to the words "were replaced" to get clued in to the fact that something different happened to the 8-inch guns. Minor point, though.
  • "Poltava was almost 400 long tons (410 t) overweight". This is the first time you've mentioned Poltava, yet you only imply that she's one of the Petropavlovsk-class ships. Although you said in the lead that there were three ships in the class, this should also be in the body of the article. I'd recommend by leading off with that in "Design and description" and giving their names up front.
    • Sorry, that was a copy-paste error.
      • You still state that Petropavlovsk was one of three ships in the lead, but not in the body.
  • "British firm of Hawthorn Leslie". Is the "of" necessary?
    • Nope.
  • "twin-gun turrets". Is the hyphen necessary?
    • Yep, compound adjective.
  • "the actual rate of fire was half that." I think you mean to say that it was actually 1 round/45 seconds, but this could technically also mean .5 rounds/90 seconds.
    • Remember that rate of fire is actually a fraction so it means the latter or 1/180 seconds.
      • I guess that makes sense, but it's still confusing because "one round every 90 seconds" isn't really in fraction form. I'd still consider to make it clear (n.b. as per my previous comment I thought it was the opposite), but it's a minor point.
        • Think of it in this way: If I do something half as fast, it takes twice as long.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then say "the actual rate of fire was half as fast", not "half that". Saying "half that" means you're dividing an unspecified something in two, while saying "half that" means you're dividing speed in two.
  • "quick-firing (QF) guns." I'm not sure the parenthetical abbreviation is worth it, considering you only use it once more in the article, and it contributes to a bit of a sea of blue.

Construction

  • "Delayed ... the ship was laid down on 19 May 1892". The delay lacks context unless you add when the ship was ordered (perhaps in the preceding section).
    • Rephrased
  • "[She was] launched on 9 November 1894. Her trials lasted from 1898 to 1899". What did she do from 1894 to 1898?
    • Covered in the above rephrasing.
      • Where? I see what happened before 1892 now, but not what happened from 1894 to 1898.
  • "raised his flag on Petropavlovsk." What does this mean? Does it mean that he personally resided on the ship?
    • It's another way of saying that Petropavlovsk became his flagship.
  • In general, it's a little unclear what the relationship between Skrydlov and Stark was. Was Skrydlov in command of the squadron before Stark?
    • How does it read now?
      • Looks good.

Battle of Port Arthur

  • "the Russian failure to withdraw its troops". I think this should be "Russia's failure to withdraw its troops". Also, this sentence (about activities in 1903) should perhaps go after the discussion of what happened in 1901.
  • "The final straws were ... in Korea." This is a long and somewhat awkward sentence. It would be better with the word "the" between "were" and "news", and with a comma following "in northern Korea".
  • "These caused the Japanese government". How about "These actions caused", because otherwise you're essentially saying "These straws caused", which sounds odd.
    • I adopted all of your suggestions other than the comma, which looks very odd to me in front of "and"
  • "The Pacific Squadron began mooring". Not sure the link to Wiktionary is worth it.
  • "The Pacific Squadron began mooring in the outer harbor at night as tensions with Japan increased, in order". How about "As tensions with Japan increased, the Pacific Squadron began mooring in the outer harbor at night in order".

Sinking

  • Generally, I think you need to add some of the significance of the sinking. You alluded to here—saying the loss of Makarov was a big deal—but it's nowhere in the article. The Japanese also seem to have thought it was a big deal, considering the caption on the illustration, and the fact that several contemporary depictions of it were made.
  • How about a bigger picture? See here or here or here.
    • Upgraded the existing image.
  • "taking 27 officers and 652 men, including Makarov and the war artist Vasily Vereshchagin, with her." How about "taking with her..." Also, what about some background on why Vereshchagin was on the ship?
    • I wish I knew; that bit was added by a Russian-reading editor, not me.
  • "Seven officers and 73 men were rescued." Here and above, same point about officers also being men.
    • Ironically, that's straight from my source.
  • "Japanese divers identified his remains inside the wreck of Petropavlovsk". What were Japanese divers doing down there, and why not Russian divers? Does the source say where in the ship his remains were found?

Overall

  • Looks pretty good, and most of the points above are fairly minor and discretionary. The main things are 1) the short lead, 2) the lack of discussion of the significance of the sinking (and Makarov's death), and to a lesser extent 3) the lack of a sentence giving the names of the other ships in the class. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your thorough review. I don't think that the names of the other ships in the class is really necessary as I've corrected the mistake that led to one of them being mentioned without an explanation. Not sure that I can do much with the short lede as adding technical details there would only be redundant to the description and not a summary. Still thinking about adding something on the significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

It has become more or less standard for ISBNs in featured articles to be rendered in consistent 13-digit form. Thus, Corbett= 978-1-55750-129-5; Kowner= 978-0-8108-4927-3; Silverstone= 978-0-88254-979-8; Westwood= 978-0-88706-191-2. Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking them up for me, but I'll stick the original ISBNs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Parsecboy

edit

Support from PM

edit

I reviewed this in detail when it recently went through Milhist A-Class review, and have looked over the changes made since. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

edit

Support, I was a part of the A-Class review, and can find no additional problems. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The ed17

edit

Made a few copyedits. Great job! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2018 [39].

Felix Mendelssohn

edit
Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the composer Felix Mendelssohn. It went to GA status some time ago, was recently thoroughly revised and has just had a peer review which resulted in further additions, corrections and rewriting. Felix deserves a FA and I hope this - subject to your constructive comments and the changes that they produce - is it. Smerus (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

edit

I enjoyed the fruitful dialogue in the peer review, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up the op. 61 and 64 images done
  • File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy.jpg has two identical tags and needs a US PD tag done
  • File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg: when/where was this first published? Not known: painted 1821, and artist died 1854
  • File:Octetp1.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Mendelssohn_Wedding_March_Theme.jpg, File:Mendelssohn_VnConcert_op64_2mvt.png, File:Mendelssohn_oregan_sonatas.jpg, File:Elijah_arranged_for_duet_1.jpgdone
  • File:Mendelssohn-Denkmal-Leipzig_Kohut-1-S41-cropped.jpg: if the photographer is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?We don't: is there anything I can do about this?
  • File:DPAG_2009_Felix_Mendelssohn_Bartholdy.jpg: according to Commons, German stamps are eligible for copyright protection. Is there anything that I can do about this?Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC) now deleted--Smerus (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Nikkimaria, many thanks for your comments, see my comments above. I am not very familiar with the image protocols on WP, is there anything I can do about the last two images on your list, or will they have to be axed? Also, does File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg need a remedy? Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Nikkimaria, I have deleted the stamp and the old photo of the statue (see above). I have replaced the stamp with the portrait by Schaow, which I believe is fit for purpose by WP standards. I am unclear of the import of your queries as regards 'published' in relation to File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg and File:Elijah_arranged_for_duet_1.jpg. Neither of these as far as I am aware appeared in a printed publication (although of course they may well have done - I don't know how to ascertain this). Both are in public collections (Bodleian and Library of Congress respectively). The latter has therefore the same status as File:Octetp1.jpg - does it therefore not simply need the US PD tag (which it has)? With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{PD-US}} is appropriate when the image was published, not simply created, before 1923. If neither of these images appeared in a printed publication, then that's probably not the most appropriate tag for them. (The same applies to File:Octetp1.jpg - because of its small size I thought it was a published edition, my apologies for missing that it is also a manuscript.) Depending on when the images were digitized, {{PD-US-unpublished}} may work. It's also possible that the holding libraries would have information on publication history. The portrait at least appears to have been used for CD and book covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nikkimaria,

The Bodleian inform me as follows:

CARL JOSEPH BEGAS 1794-1854)

Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847)

1821

Oil on canvas, 182 x 140 mm

Provenance: Given by the artist to Dr Johann Ludwig Caspar; given by the daughters of Dr Caspar to Lili Wach (1845-1910), the composer’s daughter, in 1896; her daughter, Maria Wach (1877-1964), from whom it was purchased by the Bodleian as part of her family papers and memorabilia purchase completed in 1970)

Exhibition: Oxford, 1997, no. 5

Literature: Crum and Ward Jones, vol. 2, p. 57 [Catalogue of the Mendelssohn papers in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: Printed music and books]

MS. M. Deneke Mendelssohn e. 5

Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, that's going to be a problem - if the earliest exhibit was 1997, it's not eligible for either PD-URAA or PD-US-unpublished. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Nikkimaria, is there no alternative to removal? Can I change it into a file on English Wikipedia (as I seem to recall is sometimes done)? Or should I approach the Bodleian direct for some permission? If the latter, what exactly do I need from them? Pardon for my ignorance in such matters - Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would be able to upload locally on English Wikipedia if it were PD in the US but not elsewhere - at the moment we're struggling with the opposite. Given what you've described about the provenance, it seems unlikely the Bodleian would have held copyright, but they may have more information about publication history. Basically the issue is that the image currently falls into the 1978 to 2002 abroad bracket, which places copyright expiration in 2047; in order to use it we need to find information placing it in a different bracket, or attempt a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Double sharp

edit

Likewise, having enthusiastically participate in the PR, I am very happy to support this excellent article. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

edit

I've gone through this and have made various fixes. That article, on the whole, is very good, but at the moment, is not quite there in terms of FA standard. There is a lot of unattributed statements; a few lines of awkward writing; inconsistent formatting issues with he refs; POV claims...etc. Below are just a few:

Childhood

  • But at that time, it was not considered proper... by whom? by Abraham and Felix, as stated in sentence, and in citation
  • Could we replace "well-known pianist" with "successful pianist"? That would be inaccurate. She was not 'successful' in that she never had a career as a pianist. She was however well-known as a pianist to the Berlin cognoscenti, as the citation supports

Musical education

  • "Like Mozart before him, Mendelssohn was regarded as a child prodigy."I have deleted this sentence as you don't like it. but the contents of this and the next section demonstrate it to be true

Early maturity

  • "At age 16 Mendelssohn wrote his String Octet in E-flat major, the first work which showed the full power of his genius" --POV This doesn't seem to me to be POV, but anyway I have rewritten
    • "the first work which showed the full power of his genius" looks like a personal point of view, whichever way you cut it. The fix is better, thanks.

Meeting Goethe and conducting Bach

  • "...the elderly Johann Wolfgang von Goethe." Why the adjective?to stress that one of the interesting aspects of the relationship was the difference in age. Not all readers will know Goethe's birth-date.
    • Elderly to him could be the difference of just a few years; or elderly in general, ie octogenarian). To clarify the point, perhaps say how much older they were and drop "elderly" altogether. rewritten

More to come. CassiantoTalk 10:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Düsseldorf

Leipzig and Berlin

  • "He was deluged by offers of music from rising composers and would-be composers" -- is there a way of avoiding the repeated word here? rewritten

Mendelssohn in Britain

  • "He composed and performed, and he edited for British publishers the first critical editions..." -- and/and clash. I think this could be written with more precision. rewritten
  • "Mendelssohn also worked..." The adverb doesn't work in a new paragraph. If you are insistent on it, I'd join with the previous one; but if you're inclined to agree, I'd delete it. agreed
  • "at this period → "during this period" during is OK
  • "and her musical husband Prince Albert" -- "musical husband" is inappropriate and somewhat irrelevant. "On subsequent visits Mendelssohn met Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, both of whom greatly admired his music" is better.rewritten

Personality

  • "Although the image was cultivated, especially after his death in the detailed family memoirs by his nephew Sebastian Hensel, of a man always equable, happy and placid in temperament, this was misleading."→ Was this Mendelssohn's image? "This was misleading" requires a modification to the prose before it. no it doesn't - Hensel helped to propagate an image which was misleading
    • I'm very sorry, but this sentence, to me, is unintelligible. I'm sure it's not me, so if you can't see it, then I think we would require another opinion on this. CassiantoTalk 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Let's see what others say[reply]
      • How about: "Mendelssohn’s image was presented as that of a man always equable, happy and placid in temperament, particularly in the detailed family memoirs by his nephew Sebastian Hensel published after the composer’s death; this was misleading." -- your use of a comma at the end didn't help, if I'm honest. CassiantoTalk 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On one occasion in the 1830s, when his wishes had been crossed, "his excitement was increased so fearfully ... that when the family was assembled ... he began to talk incoherently in English. The stern voice of his father at last checked the wild torrent of words; they took him to bed, and a profound sleep of twelve hours restored him to his normal state". Who said this? Attribution needed. If you read the note you will see the source
    • Thanks, I've read the source, but why should I have to click away from where I'm reading to find who said it? It's an unnecessary distraction. What harm is there in attributing what's said in quote marks to the person who said it, in the text? CassiantoTalk 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC) OK, have rewritten[reply]

Style

  • "Mendelssohn's compositional style can be seen as a reflection of his times. Schumann wrote of him "He is the Mozart of the nineteenth century, the most brilliant musician, the one who most clearly sees through the contradictions of the age and for the first time reconciles them." -- seen by who? Schumann? Attribute in the text to avoid future take asking "who". OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end
  • "Secondly..." in a new para does not seem correct. Surely, this adverb is linked to to "first..." in the para before it? A new paragraph should be new altogether. OK, have rewritten
  • "The absence of significant stylistic development during Mendelssohn's career makes it appropriate to consider his works by genre, rather than in order of composition." -- appears unsourced and ends in no citation. OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Early works

  • Is there a reason why you link C.P.E Bach twice; once in this section and secondly in the musical education section? as mentioned above, I deliberately repeat links in the music section which have already been made in the life section. Rhis is for the convenience of readers, especially in long articles. I have seen this practised in other FA articles.
  • "...which justify claims frequently made..." by who? as per citation - see my comments at end

Chamber music

  • "In particular, his String Quartet No. 6, the last of his string quartets and his last major work – written following the death of his sister Fanny – is both powerful and eloquent." POV. Who described it as "both powerful and eloquent"? OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Piano music

  • I may've missed it, but who is Glenn Stanley? OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end
  • The last para of this section closes without a citation, it appears. OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Opera

  • "Although he never abandoned the idea of composing a full opera..." -- new para, new noun.sorry, don't understand the point you are seeking to make

I should finish this later. CassiantoTalk 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I have made a number of changes as a consequence, not all of which I am entirely happy with. In particular your accent on physically naming in the sentence the authority whose name is clear from the citation seems to me to be over meticulous (I won't quite say nit-picking). I don't think the reader will be especially illuminated by having the name of Mercer-Taylor in a sentence, particularly as there is not a Peter Mercer-Taylor article in WP, and i don't feel that this is required by the FA standards. But let it be so. If any other editors are interested in commenting on this, I should be glad to see their views. A couple of sentences, which served merely as guidance to what was coming next but served no other vital purpose, I have deleted , or given a functional citation (e.g. to other piano pieces) although I am not convinced this is necessary. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you weren't entirely happy with my edits, then you should've stuck to your guns; you should not have gone and fixed them to keep me happy and in doing so, I think you've undermined your own FAC. The naming of who said what is important as it eliminates the need to question who said it. What I've found particularly frustrating with this article is coming across a piece of quoted text, or an opinion, and finding that it is not beeing attributed to anyone. It makes me feel inclined to either add a {{who}} tag to find out who said it, go to the talk page to ask who said it, or needing to click away from where I'm reading in order to find out who said it, whether it be in a footnote or an outside source. As a reader I do not want to have to do that and you most certainly do not speak for me when you say you can't imagine a reader not being "especially illuminated" by having the name of [someone] in a sentence to whom the quote belongs to. I'm sorry you've felt the need to offer me a shit sandwich interms of feed back. I'll continue to read through and I'll switch to a weak support as it is clear a lot of time has been spent on this. CassiantoTalk 14:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't mistake me, I am very grateful for your opinions and considerations. I was prepared to over-ride my inclinations in some cases, and indeed I did so. If I felt convinced you had no grounds, I wouldn't have made the concessions I did. That's not the same as being convinced you were right, of course. As mentioned above, I'd welcome opinion or guidance on this from other editors. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

edit

Support from Edwininlondon

edit

Lots of activity today .. sorry if any of these comments were already addressed today:

  • an infobox would be nice Sorry, I profoundly disagree
  • deliberately decided -> can one decide un-deliberately? One cannot: I have changed
  • (Letter to Felix Mendelssohn of 8 July 1829) -> I'm not sure this is needed here. Unnecessary detail have cut out 'Mendelssohn'
  • regarded as a child prodigy.[by whom?] -> I'm fairly sure you are dealing with this, but just in case I'm highlighting it dealt with
  • After the family moved to Berlin, all four Mendelssohn children -> I found this confusing because they moved to Berlin when he was 2 and the previous sentence describes activity at age 6 now rewritten to clarify
  • He chose this position although -> somehow this decision is now discussed in 2 paragraphs. Better if it's just in 1.rewritten
  • "historical concerts" -> a bit mysterious as to why this is a quote or by whom now rewritten to clarify
  • he would "never cease to endeavour to gain his approval [...] although I can no longer enjoy it" -> mix of he and I No: the 'he' prefacing the quote clearly refers to Felix, and the 'I' is the quote as cited
  • the King's request -> is that capital correct? Yes
  • his former teacher Ignaz Moscheles -> not sure he needs to be reintroduced, I think Moscheles suffices dealt with
  • (Letter to Rebecka Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Soden, 22 July 1844) -> not needed I think Agree to differ
  • "where it is to be hoped there is still music, but no more sorrow or partings." -> check whole article against punctuation and quotation rules to be sure, but this one I think should end with ". No: Where quoted extract ends with a full stop, full stop should be inside quote marks
  • jejune -> unusual word I think. Perhaps better to use a more common one? It's in any dictionary. We're not here
  • "to assimilate the dynamic trajectory of "external form" to the "logical" unfolding of the story of the theme" -> quotations within quotations should be single quotes done
  • "to assimilate the dynamic trajectory of "external form" to the "logical" unfolding of the story of the theme" -> source? citation is quite clear
  • his three piano quartets, (1822–1825; -> I don't think you need that comma done
  • its intellectual grasp -> two times grasp in same sentence In the next seentence I think, have changed
  • Mendelssohn wrote the concert overture The Hebrides (Fingal's Cave) in 1830 -> both links not needed, both already linkedI have consciously relinked works and people when they first appeared in the first half of the article, for convenience of readers - applies to next 2 comments as well)
  • was written for Ferdinand David. -> already linked
  • of Beethoven, Brahms, and Bruch -> maybe run the article through duplinks
  • nineteenth century and 19th century are used. Pick one now 19th, except quotes and source titles where 'nineteenth' is used
  • "virtually alone" -> according to whom? as per the citation
  • (including of course his own music) -> that's 2 sets of parentheses on same line, maybe better to rephrase done

Edwininlondon (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I give my supporton prose. Great piece of work.Edwininlondon (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Tim riley

edit

A few minor points that occur to me on rereading since the PR:

  • Childhood
    • "a pianist well-known to Berlin" – I don't think this wants the hyphen. If I have it aright it's "a well-known pianist" but "a pianist who is well known" agreed, done
  • Meeting Goethe and conducting Bach
    • "the revival of J. S. Bach's music" – having already mentioned him by surname alone in this paragraph I don't think you need his initials here. agreed, done
  • Düsseldorf
    • "Mozart's Don Giovanni" – Mozart has already been mentioned in the text and the blue link ought to be moved up to there. agreed, done
    • "direction of ...the editorship of ...and director of" – for consistency, perhaps "director of" should be "direction of". agreed, done
    • "he accepted the latter in 1835" – an old-fashioned pedant (e.g. me) might object that you can't have the latter of three; other people might tell the pedant to get a life. uh, far be it from me, of course, to suggest to anyone, least of all you, Tim, to get a new life, but....
    • the word "amongst" appears nine times in the text, and one begins to notice it after a while. Perhaps a few plain "amongs" here and there? This is not the first time you have caught me out in my 'amongst' addiction. Believe me, I am now regularly taking the medicine, and have sought to eradicate the traces of my depravity in the article
  • Mendelssohn in Britain
    • "In the course of his ten visits to Britain during his life" – as he made no posthumous ones I might rejig this slightly on the lines of "Mendelssohn made a total of ten visits to Britain, totalling about 20 months; he won..." agreed, done
  • Symphonies
    • "orchestra of the Royal Philharmonic Society" – the RPS wasn't Royal yet. corrected
  • Other orchestral music
    • Second para: if we're giving Calm Sea and Preposterous Voyage its German title in brackets we might do the same for The Fair Melusine. agreed, done

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and I am very pleased to add my support for the promotion of this fine article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It has sent me to my shelves to get down some Mendelssohn CDs: deeply enjoyable, so thank you, Smerus. – Tim riley talk 13:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim for your comments and support. My meta-comments above in tangerine. I too have been relistening, just today to the op. 80 quartet, which so violently disproves that M. had 'lost his mojo', and that he might yet have breached new musical ear- and mind-scapes.Smerus (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (LOL at "Preposterous Voyage"!) Just on a personal note, while I agree that the charges laid against most of the late works certainly do not apply to M's Op. 80, when listening to it just now I kept getting involuntarily reminded of Beethoven's Op. 95, and unlike the reminiscences of it and Op. 132 that permeate M's Op. 13, this resemblance doesn't entirely work in M's favour for me. Really sorry for providing more of the traditional equivocation, though I must say that I deeply enjoyed it despite these involuntary reminisces. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

The sources themselves are generally fine, but there are various formatting issues that need to be attended to:

  • Page range formats should be consistent throughout. Refs 34 and 131 are a couple of examples of non-standard formats but there are others.
  • Some page ranges (47, 53, 55 et al) include hyphens which should be ndashes
  • There's variation in the ways that retrieval dates are presented – we have "Retrieved", "retrieved" and "accessed". I suppose this is because sometimes you use cite templates and sometimes not; whether or not you use them, the formats should be consistent.
  • Ref 72 is missing a p. number (the citation is to a two-volume work)
  • The formats of the online non-Harvard citations are likewise somewhat varied. The essential elements are title, publisher and retrieval date; these are not always immediately clear – in 183 for example. In some instances I think you are confusing title with publisher, as for example in 177, where "Music and the Holocaust" is the title – the publisher is "World ORT". Cite templates have their limitations, but they do help help in achieving consistency in citation formats. I would format 177 thus, using cite web template:
  • 177. "Music and the Holocaust: Carl Orff". World ORT. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
  • Can Werner 1963 truly be described as a "modern" biography in 2017?
  • Can "Schmooze" be justified as a high-quality reliable source?

I wish I had time to read and review the text, as I would normally enjoy doing for any composer article, but other pressures prevent this at the moment. I'm pleased to see that the article is currently well supported by reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian for making the time to review sources. Nikkimaria very kindly helped with the dash/hyphen issue for me. I think I have now dealt with all the other issues. Hensel (1884) as a citation referred to the whole shebang - I will seek and add source that confirms that Hensel was piously lenient to his uncle. Best--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I'm thrilled to see an article about such an important figure here at FAC. A few of the questions I raise have also been raised on another FAC about a classical composer; they may come from a lack of knowledge about classical music combined with a MOS that is not well-suited to the topic!

  • First thing's first: File:Portrait of Felix Mendelssohn (1821).jpg. I'd whap PD-old on it and be done with it, but if we're sure that it's within copyright (bizarre though that seems to me), then it must be used in accordance with the NFCC. The problem is that (I'm sorry to say) this use is not acceptable under the NFCC. There's no way that a biography of a contemporary figure would get through FAC with a non-free image of them as a child, unless there was some particular reason to believe that their childhood appearance was very important for the article.Well, i am following the advice of Nikkimaria (above) on this, but if things get hairy I will try PD-OLD. I find the whole issue of copyright categories very confusing
  • "listings of recordings at amazon.com" I'd exclude this, but if it is being included, it would be "Amazon.com".rewritten
  • "his Overture and" Why caps?It was published specifically as an Overture, it was not e.g. a generic introduction to a suite
  • "and incidental music for A Midsummer Night's Dream," Slightly cryptic; in the sentence, "Midsummer Night's Dream" refers to the play, but the link is to the incidental music.rewritten
  • "the overture The Hebrides," Why italics? Would speech marks not be typical for shorter pieces like this?music titles in italics, as for books, is the norm
  • "his mature Violin Concerto, and his String Octet" I'm not sure how consistent this usage is with the MOS; are they "Short Works" or Long Works?this format is the norm
  • "his Violin Concerto" Again this format is the norm
  • Feel free to ignore this, but I would be inclined to merge "surname" and "childhood"- perhaps too "musical education", or the early parts of it.I feel free :-)
  • "manuscripts which she bequeathed" that? I'm Ok with which
  • "his String Octet in E-flat major, a" As above I'm Ok with music titles in the article
  • "as "mark[ing] the beginning of his maturity as a composer."[26] This" Is that consistent with MOS:LQ? All quotes in the article are consistent with MOS:LQ
  • "This Octet and his Overture to Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream," As above, capitalisation and linking issuesas above; linking rewritten
  • "famous Wedding March.)" Speech marks OK
  • "The Overture is perhaps" Now this is in italics; I confess I'm struggling to understand the formatting!corrected
  • "of Mendelssohn's opera, Die Hochzeit des Camacho." Was that M's only opera? If not, surely the comma should be removed? (If it was, please ignore.) corrected
  • "friend and correspondent, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" Again, unless he was the only friend and correspondent, presumably the comma should be dropped? corrected
  • "overture Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage, (Op. 27, 1828) and" Should the comma not appear after the parenthetical phrase? corrected
  • "references which Mendelssohn" that? I'm Ok with which
  • "score which he" Perhaps add a comma after score? corrected
  • "the editorship of the prestigious music journal, the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung" Again, lose the comma? There's more than one prestigious music journal. (I'm also slightly puzzled about how this fits in to the sentence; was this part of his role in Leipzig or in Munich?) corrected
  • "of 'historical concerts' featuring" Why single quotes? corrected
  • "Schubert's Ninth Symphony and sent" Caps again seems right to me
  • "his oratorio Paulus, (the English" Is that comma necessary? seems right to me
  • " music for productions of Sophocles's Antigone (1841) and Oedipus at Colonus (1845), A Midsummer Night's Dream (1843) and Racine's Athalie (1845)." Some of these are the "cryptic" links I mentioned earlier, some aren't! corrected
  • "including string players Ferdinand David and Joseph Joachim and music theorist Moritz Hauptmann" the string players and the music theorist corrected
  • "met Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, (himself a composer), who" Either lose the brackets or the first comma, surely. corrected
  • "soloist in Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 4 and" Caps/speech marks/etc. I think this is OK
  • "sorrow or partings."[71]" Again, I'd put that period outside of the quotemarks no, per MOS - this is the end of the sentence quoted, therefore comes inside the quote marks
  • "temper which" Comma, or else change which to that? I'm happy with which

Stopping there for now; very engaging so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • "Berlioz's overture Les francs-juges "the orchestration" Caps corrected
  • "Meyerbeer's opera Robert le diable "I conside" Again corrected
  • "professor of history" Your other mentions of professorships capitalise them, unless I am missing something. "Professor Surname", but " a professor of something", I think
  • "called 'Green Books' of" Why single quotes? corrected
  • "Meyerbeer's Robert le diable – an" Caps corrected
  • "opera which musically" that? agreed
  • "two features which characterized" Ditto agreed
  • "at the keyboard -"every morning," Is that dash right? corrected
  • "other 'modernists' sought" Why single quotes? corrected
  • Your blockquote style is apparently inconsistent; also, is the wikilink in the second necessary? More generally- you seem to alternate on whether you capitalise the R of romantic[ism], and link it in several places. I try to put long quotes in blockquotes, shorter ones in text. I use R for Romanticism, but the quote here uses r. I have removed link
  • "the String Octet (1825), the Overture A Midsummer Night's Dream (1826)" Similar worries to the above. sorted, I think
  • Generally, the music section has a lot of names of songs etc., so I'm not going to comment on all of them; just, generally, I'm raising the question! I also note that you shouldn't be worried about including redlinks if any of these pieces are notable; some editors seem to have a real aversion to redlinks, and that is regrettable! I will write short articles about some of these pieces over the holiday period
  • "These four works show an intuitive command of form, harmony, counterpoint, colour, and compositional technique, which justify claims frequently made that Mendelssohn's precocity exceeded even that of Mozart in its intellectual grasp." This doesn't feel very neutral cite clarified
  • "well-known Wedding March, was" Why italics? corrected
  • Songs Without Words is introduced several times corrected
  • "and their overwhelming popularity has itself caused many critics to underrate their musical value" That doesn't feel very neutral cite clarified
  • As example? ?
  • "the domination of Christianity."[149]" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes corrected
  • "five settings of psalms for" Would that not be "The Psalms"? I'm not sure. rewritten
  • "his version of Psalm 42" Again- a cryptic link.rewritten
  • "song composition."[152] Many" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes, but may be wrong. corrected
  • Is extemporise jargon? I had to look it up! A dictionary word, could be used for speech and for music, not jargon i would say
  • "as the 'classics') he" Why single quotes? rewritten
  • "as well, of course, as" Editorialising! corrected
  • "Such criticism of Mendelssohn for his very ability – which could be characterised negatively as facility" This feels like editorialising Heine's quote is a clear example of how criticism for ability "could be characterised negatively as facility"; the comment is therefore I believe a straightforward elaboration of the quote rather than editorializing
  • "his popularity and his Jewish origins irked Wagner sufficiently to damn Mendelssohn with faint praise," This too. cite given
  • "This was the start of a movement to downgrade Mendelssohn's status as a composer which lasted almost a century, the echoes of which still survive today in critiques of Mendelssohn's supposed mediocrity.[n 10]" This is definitely editorialising. Do you have a source for these claims? You cite an example, but we'd need a source identifying the trend; more than that, I'm not sure it could be uncritically presented in Wikipedia's neutral voice. I worry that the article could be read as coming from a particular perspective; one of the elements of that perspective might be to "rescue" Mendelssohn from "unfair" criticisms. See my comments at end. I've relegated this to a note and have rewritten
  • "Some readers, however, have interpreted Nietzsche's characterization of Mendelssohn as a 'lovely incident' as condescending.[176]" Why single quotes? corrected
  • "Mendelssohn's Wedding March from" Italics again corrected
  • When you mention M's popularity in England, do you perhaps mean Britain? You switch to British further down the paragraph. corrected
  • "Mendelssohn's sacred choral music, particularly the smaller-scale works, remains popular in the choral tradition of the Church of England." Reference?deleted
  • "Such opinions are evidence of how a more nuanced appreciation of Mendelssohn's work has developed over the last 50 years, together with the publication of a number of biographies placing his achievements in context." This does not feel neutral. see my comments at end
  • "All of Mendelssohn's oeuvre – including the most popular works such as the Violin Concerto and the Italian Symphony – has been explored more deeply, and prior concepts about the Victorian conventionality of the oratorio Elijah have been shed.[n 12] The frequently intense and dramatic world of Mendelssohn's chamber works has been more fully recognised. Virtually all of Mendelssohn's published works are now available on CD, and his works are frequently heard in the concert hall and on broadcasts.[198]" Again, this feels like editorialising; the neutrality is questionable, and the source is not clear, as examples are cited rather than scholars making a case for the view. see my comments at end

I think this article is a real achievement, and I personally enjoyed the passing references to various philosophers. In addition to a few writing questions I've raised, I think the neutrality towards the end of the article needs considering a little more closely; I think your perspective shines through a little at the end, which is probably more suited to a professional encyclopedia than a Wikipedia article! I may be wrong here (and may be wrong in a few of my suggestions above), but I do hope that my comments are useful regardless. (Also, please double-check my edits, but I can't see any being controversial.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks again for these further comments. On reading the last sections of the article again in the light of your notes I have sensed that editorialising could be construed in some places and have rewritten/edited accordingly, including addition of citations where appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you able to revisit this soon, Josh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to be a bore, but I'm not comfortable supporting promotion at present; the use of a non-free image is bothering me (and I don't want to butt heads with Nikkimaria by suggesting that it should be marked as PD!), while I still feel that there are some style problems that shouldn't be present in a FA: for example, quote marks on some blockquotes but not on others, inconsistent capitalisation of romanticism (and related words), and inconsistent capitalisation of professor. I also feel there's some that/which confusion and some odd commas, but they're perhaps not the biggest problems in the world. I do wonder, too, whether there's still a particular perspective that the article is coming from, but I'll leave that to other reviewers. To be clear: I do think that the article is very strong, but I'm not convinced it's quite where it needs to be; it is, obviously, much harder to write an article on such a major figure, and I have never attempted it, so there is naturally much to commend! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • And there are many very capable editors who know a great deal about these things who have already supported the article, so maybe I'm getting hung up on nothing. I would not think it at all improper if the FA coordinators chose to afford my worries little weight. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Milburn, I would make the following meta-comments:

  • There is only one blockquote which includes quote marks at each end. This quote relays a conversation between Goethe and Zelter. It is not appropriate to remove the quote marks in these circumstances, as they are necessary to distinguish the speakers.
  • I give romanticism with a lower case R where it is so used in quotes. My understanding is that it is not acceptable to repunctuate quotes - unless someone can indicate to me a WP guidance which says otherwise.
  • On 'which' and 'that', I sometimes agree with you (in which cases I have changed the text) and sometimes don't. I hope you may agree to differ.
  • Professor - I have made one further correction. I don't believe there are any further miscapitalizations in the article, but if they are feel free to correct them accordingly.
  • On the issue of the picture - blowed if I understand the issues here, so I am always prepared to be guided by those who have more experience. I don't in fact comprehend how an image of a picture painted so long ago could possibly be construed as non-free, but I am not a copyright lawyer
  • As mentioned above I have since your previous marks extensively rewritten and recast parts of the article where I feel editorialising could possibly be construed, with the intention of maintaining neutrality.

Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on the blockquotes; apologies for that mistake. On romanticism: I'm not talking about the quotes. I might be wrong (and I self-reverted) but I counted five instances with the lower-case r- this was one example of what felt like little imperfections that don't belong in a FA. And on the image: currently, it is included as a non-free image. It's usage must therefore meet the non-free content criteria. The present usage quite clearly does not. And I want to stress again that I am not opposing promotion. I just do not feel that I can support at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image discussion

edit
  • Josh Milburn, it seems that we seriously differ now only about the image; specifically that you feel it does not meet the non-free content criteria. I have now gone through WP:NFCC and WP:FUR. I would be grateful if you could indicate where it fails the criteria, as whilst it may be clear to you it is not alas to me. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It fails NFCC#8. Readers can surely have a full understanding of the topic without seeing a picture of M when he was young; we wouldn't be having this conversation if this was a living or recently deceased person, as no one would have thought to include a non-free image of the subject when young. Given the age of the image, there's also every chance that it fails NFCC#1. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh Milburn, I must disagree with your interpretation(s). NFCC#8 reads "Contextual significance. 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." As it as essential part of FM's story that he was a child genius, a picture of him as a child does indeed (in my opinion, if not in yours) significantly enhance the reader's sense of what is being discussed. The age of the image has nothing to do with NFCC#1, which deals with the use of alternatives, of which none are known to me or any other source I have examined. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not really want to get into a back-and-forth about this issue, and that is one of the reasons that I did not explicitly oppose. I am not going to get into that back and forth now, but will suggest that this image from a 1906 book may be a suitable alternative. Nikki? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

  • Thanks for the alternative proposal, but it's an extremely poor and in fact rather crude interpretation of the original picture, and therefore not attractive or appropriateas an illustration to the article; but
  • It was published in Boston in 1906. Can this be taken as evidence that the present article image was published in the US at that time. In which case we would have no problem with the original - or would we?

I have looked at a few other artworks illustrating FA articles. E.g.

  • File:George Frideric Handel by Balthasar Denner.jpg is flagged as {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}, with the rubric "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details." No evidence is offered that the work was published or registered in the US before January 1, 1923.
  • Same goes for File:Mozart family crop.jpg, and a number of others.

I wonder why, therefore, the original image used in the article (File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy 1821.jpg), which I changed on Nikkimaria's advice, can't be reinstated? --Smerus (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to get into an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but on a quick glance the sources provided for both of those images support publication and/or exhibition before 1923. (The "faithful reproductions" language refers to the fact that under US law, if you take a photo of a public-domain work, you don't get a copyright on the photo). If you contend that the image JM suggested is a copy of the original, then yes it can be taken as evidence, but if it's a reinterpretation then the issue is more complicated - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator comments

edit

I think there is a consensus to promote here. I've had a quick look at the issues that J Milburn raised, and while some of them are a matter of opinion, and other reviewers seem to feel the article is fine, there is still inconsistent capitalisation of "romanticism". And in terms of consistency, I believe that not all images have alt text. I think it should be all or none in this case. I'd also like someone to check duplinks as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Finally, we seem to have a few deadlinks, which I'd like to be cleared up before we promote. Sarastro (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro, thanks for this. I have now removed all the alts. The simplest answer for 'romanticism' has been to change all uses to lower case, which I have now done. As regards duplicated links, I have gone through again - links are duplicated in the Music section where there has been a mention in the Life section. I believe this to be a convenience for composer biographies where readers may tend to look at one section or another. (CF Richard Wagner FA). I have corrected the OCLCs where they were inaccurate, but have not identified any other dead links. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putting my oar in: I think there has indeed grown up an unwritten convention for composer life-and-works articles that it is helpful to readers to start afresh with the links in the Works section. Most if not all composer FAs follow this pattern, I think. – Tim riley talk 12:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dead links are to a couple of the Grove Music articles (there is another but that is archived). These can be seen by clicking the "external links" in the toolbox on the left of this page. Maybe I'm missing something and we don't actually need them, but I'd like clarification before I promote. Sarastro (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also putting my oar in, stealing Tim's thunder if I might, I don't think alt text is a requirement for FAC, and I see he has removed some, so don't see as a deal breaker. Re 'romanticism', ideally the tile of major artistic movements should be capitalised, but obviously not in direct quotes. The dead-links are another matter. I have a sub to Grove if it would help. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realise I am late here, but support on condition of fixing the dead links noted by Sarastro1 above, and having given a comprehensive, and utterly enjoyable, read through last night. Ceoil (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil, thank you for your support. Sarastro, I have now corrected the Grove references, they now seem to work OK. As regards 'Romanticism', i would prefer using 'R' throughout, but there are a couple of occurrences in quotes where the original is in lower case. For the sake of uniformity (if that is indeed the criterion) I have changed to lower case throughout. However that means that the one occasion where 'R' was used in a quote is now rendered as "[r]omanticism"- not really ideal. It seems impossible to satisfy everyone on this point.--Smerus (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: In passing, I note that we have removed all alt text. This is certainly not a FA requirement, and makes no difference here, but I will observe (as I quite often do!) that I believe FAs should demonstrate best practice, and perhaps alt text is part of that best practice. But that is for the main author(s) to decide and I shall promote very shortly. Sarastro (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2018 [40].

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

edit
Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an awesomely stupid film from the Resident Evil franchise. The article was promoted to GA in 2008 by someone else who no longer edits Wikipedia. I thought it fell embarrassingly short of GA standards when I stumbled across it (this is what it looked like at the beginning of this month: [41]) so I blew it up and wrote it again. The article has since received a peer review and a copy edit from GOCE. I now believe it meets the standards for FAC. Freikorp (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro1. Just my incorrigible impatience again :). Five Six votes of support, a source review and an image check. Would you like anything further? Freikorp (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Slightlymad

edit
  • "critics" doesn't need wikilinking in the lead
  • "At a separate location, Valentine, Wells, and news reporter, Terri Morales, are about to be..." → reduce comma splice by ditching the one that goes after news reporter
  • I don't intend to list them all but there are a decent amount of quotation fragments in the prose whose terminal punctuation should be placed outside. For instance, in Themes section: "it stops short of challenging them and, indeed, often deploys them."
  • The photos are captioned with complete sentences so add them with periods.
  • "Anderson said that he began writing" → remove "that" to improve textual flow
  • "The sequel was officially greenlit by Sony in mid-2002, however, Anderson" → change "however" into "but" sans the comma that's bolded. "However" should only be used in circumstances where it's unavoidable
  • "The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips, however, she eventually turned down" → same as above
  • Cinematographers Christian Sebaldt and Derek Rogers should be mentioned somewhere in Filming section. The British Film Institute can be used as source
  • "The site's Critics Consensus reads:" → no uppercase on CC please, it's just simply the status quo...
  • "Based on 124 reviews, the film holds an approval rating of 21% on Rotten Tomatoes, giving it the lowest rating of the six films in the series." → Unsourced
  • Ditch the summary statements in Critical response unless you can provide sources for them.
  • Paraphrase Dave Kehr's and Roger Ebert's input
  • Home media should not be its own section because it is a scope of the Release section.

Happy to pass once attended. Slightlymad 12:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments Slightlymad. I've attempted to address everything, with the exception of removing the topic sentences in critical response. I was asked to add them during the peer review, and it's my understanding that such sentences are quite common and are covered by the sources in the rest of the paragraph. Happy to hear more comments on why they should be removed though. Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RECEPTION as it states quite clearly that you must be vigilante to avoid OR in those sentences, and it makes total sense since WP requires verifiability, not truth. Slightlymad 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slightlymad: OK, removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good luck with this. Slightlymad 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I confess this article feels more GA than FA; the writing isn't great in places. I can't commit to a full review, but hopefully these comments will help:

  • "At a separate location, Valentine, Wells, and news reporter, Terri Morales, are about to be overrun, but for Alice who comes to their rescue." Clumsy.
  • Reworded
  • "Umbrella dispatches an experimental supersoldier, Nemesis, for testing." Do you mean "deploys"?
  • Fixed
  • "he is Matt Addison, following a genetic mutation." This should be rephrased.
  • I don't see the problem, and accordingly don't know what kind of rephrase would be an improvement. Happy to hear more feedback about this sentence.
  • "Writing for the journal Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, Stephen Harper" Are you sure? That's an academic rather than journalistic source. The citation should probably be changed, too.
  • I've removed that is a 'journal', let me know if you think describing is as a 'academic journal' would be more appropriate. I've reformatted is with Cite:journal as well.
  • My point is that one doesn't really write for a journal in the way that one writes for a magazine or newspaper. I'd just say something like "The media studies scholar Stephen Harper" and not bother mentioning the journal in the prose. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characters in Apocalypse, both" Italics!
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • "That same year, Adam Seeback from The Nerd Stash said that while he did not consider any films in the series to be good, he considered Apocalypse to be the most enjoyable.[14]" Reliable?
  • Removed
  • "Both Blu-ray.com and High-Def Digest gave the Blu-ray release three stars out of five for video quality and 3½ stars for special features.[55][56]" Reliable?
  • I've used them as successful FAC's in the past, so I'm inclined to wait for additional comments on them at this stage
  • "A novelization of the film was written by Keith DeCandido.[48]" I'm not really keen on the short paragraph; would it not make sense to bundle this into the marketing section and lose the "related media" thing? I'd mention the publisher and publication date, too.
  • Done
  • "An exclusive sneak peek scene" Informal; sounds like an ad
  • Good point; reworded.

Good luck with the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments J Milburn. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

edit
  • There are numerous italicisation issues. You need to work through the reflist and de-italicise those sources (e.g British Film Institute, BoxOffice Mojo, MSN and many others) that are not initially from print media. Italics should be used for sources such as The New York Times, The Village Voice and other newspapers, magazines and journals.
  • I think I've got them all now. :)
  • Consistency is required in use of retrieval dates. It's not clear what principle is currently being used.
  • Fixed. Only half a dozen sources were using retrieval dates (they were added by someone else) so I just removed them.
  • Ref 23: What makes this (Mr X) a reliable high quality source?
  • It isn't. I only really added it so readers could link to the actually company and read more about it since the company doesn't have a wikilink. The fact that Mr X did special effects is backed up by the other source so I've just removed the Mr X source and have left the prose unchanged.
  • Ref 39 is apparently identical to 17
  • Merged
  • Ref 52 uses a non-standard archive date format.
  • Fixed

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Brianboulton. Your source review is much appreciated as always. Freikorp (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • For this sentence (It is the second installment in the Resident Evil film series, which is based on the video game series Resident Evil.), I would revise the final part to read as follows (which is based on the video game series of the same name) to avoid the repetition of Resident Evil.
  • Done.
  • For this part (The films marks Witt's feature directorial debut), I assume you mean “The film” instead of “The films”.
  • Yep that's what I meant; done.
  • For this part (Directly after the events of the first film,), I would move the link for “the first film” to this earlier part in the lead (Anderson, the director of the first film,).
  • Done.
  • I would rephrase this sentence (Directly after the events of the first film, where the heroine Alice escapes an underground facility overrun by zombies, Alice bands together with other survivors to escape the zombie outbreak, which has now infected the fictional Raccoon City.) to avoid the repetition of Alice. I would also try to make the information read more smoothly.
  • I've reworded it. Hopefully it reads better now.
  • Do you need the word “heroine” in the lead?
  • Removed.
  • The word “film” appears a lot in the lead so I would suggest some variation.
  • Removed three instances.
  • I would change the word “criticized” in the phrase “from critics who criticized the plot” to avoid having variations of the word “criticize/critics” in such close proximity.
  • Reworded.
  • I do not believe that the Jovovich image is really necessary for this article. It seems more decorative and does not seem to really illustrate anything in particular.
  • It is decorative, but I've always believed articles are improved with decorative pictures. I'm inclined to leave it as it is unless it gets further criticism.
  • For this sentence (Milla Jovovich confirmed her character would return in the sequel if the first film was successful), you could only use her last name as you already introduced the actress in the same paragraph.
  • Fixed.
  • I would revise this part (The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips), as the placement of this phrase “portrayed by Gina Philips” directly after “the film” reads rather awkwardly.
  • Done.
  • I would revise the entire sentence (The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips but she eventually turned down the role which was then given to Emily Bergl, who left before production began.) as it reads awkwardly.
  • I've reworded it. Hopefully it reads better now.
  • For this part (The character was dropped,), the citations are out of order.
  • Done.
  • In this phrase (and filming took place at forty-seven locations), do you think that “forty-seven” should be written as “47”?
  • Done.
  • For this part (The introduction of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis), please link the title.
  • Done.
  • For this part (C.O.R.E. won the contract to animate the Lickers), I would use the full title of the company (i.e. C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures).
  • Done.
  • In this part (though her insurance company would not allow her to attempt several of the more dangerous ones), could you clarify what is meant by the “more dangerous ones”?
  • Wouldn't you assume in an action film some stunts are more dangerous than others? I am aware from the DVD's special features of only two scenes that Jovovich used a stunt double for. One where her character runs down a building while attached to a rappelling harness and the scene mentioned in the above section "where Alice runs through a building while an Umbrella helicopter fires". Would you like me to explicitly mention one of these scenes in this section?
  • I was just curious if there was anything in particular (i.e. a major action scene in the film or something of the like) that may help clarify this point as it sounded like a rather vague sentence that, like you mentioned above, could be applied to pretty much any action film. It seems fine to me as it currently stands, but I just wanted to ask this as a clarification question more than anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Soundtrack.net gave the score 2½ stars out of five), I would include the reviewer’s name.
  • Done.
  • In this part (By May 2004 the teaser had), I would add a comma after “2004”.
  • Done.
  • In this part (In 2017, Michael Nordine of TheWrap), I would italicize “TheWrap”.
  • Done.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to promote this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through my FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Aoba47. I've made replies to everything. Please let me know if you'd like any further work done. I'll get to your review soon. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

...taking a look now. (I didn't mind this film...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have 3 sentences in 1st para of lead starting "It..." - need to change it up a bit.
The film borrows elements from several games in the Resident Evil series, such as the villain Nemesis. - sentence comes over a bit weird with only one example.
In the previous film, former security operative Alice and environmental activist Matt Addison escape from the Hive, an underground genetic research facility that was the source of a zombie outbreak. - given we are talking about the current film, this sentence should be in the past tense.
Alice and Addison were both taken into custody by Umbrella - might be better as "The film ended with Alice and Addison being taken into custody by Umbrella" (so we know that was the last bit of the previous film)
Umbrella send a team to re-open and investigate what happened in the Hive, but it is overpowered by zombies who quickly spread through the surrounding Raccoon City. - the team is the object of the first clause but the subject of the second - would be better if it were the subject of both or sentence split.
I split the sentence with a semicolon. I'm not good at this kind of stuff. Let me know if you have a suggested rewording Casliber. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... to fight zombie attacks - one would either "fight zombies" or "repel zombie attacks" or something...
I also remember the DVD where they had alternate material/deleted scenes...I recall a storyline where the Terri Morales character was addicted to pills..? Evolution of the script is important and worth including.
I went through all the deleted scenes again. There was one scene showing Terri taking a single pill on set after she gives the weather report and a second scene later where she drops her pills and Alice tells her not to take them as they're bad for her. It didn't seem like it was ever a major part or even much of a sub-plot. I did go through the additional commentary track, in which Anderson talks about two of the deleted scenes which can be viewed on the DVD. I added coverage from one of them, as well as new information on several aspects of the film. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umbrella deploys an experimental supersoldier, Nemesis, for testing. Nemesis kills the remaining STARS members. - these sentences are too short.
I've expanded it a little, let me know if you'd like more. I'm not sure which part would be improved by fleshing it out. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, last thing - it isn't clear for a neophyte reader that a supersoldier is a monster - something on that briefly would be good. Then I think we're done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I've described him as a 'heavily-mutated experimental supersoldier', and I've reworded the later description of him so that 'heavily-mutated' doesn't appear twice. Let me know if that's not enough. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perfect. thanks 02:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

more later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments Casliber. I enjoyed this film as well. Between myself and Homeostasis an attempt has been made to address all the prose concerns; let me know if any need further work. I ordered the DVD to write the article; I went through the special features when I got it but didn't find that storyline you mentioned. It might be on one of the cast/crew commentaries (there are 3, and I only listened to 2 of them; it's hard to watch a film 3 times in a row even if you do like it). I'll have another look through the DVD after I get home tomorrow. I'm currently away for the new years celebration; I took my laptop with me but not the DVD. Freikorp (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I've now addressed everything. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Homeostasis07

edit
Sorry for butting in at this point, but I'd been reading the article for the past couple of hours and decided to be bold and make a couple of changes myself. Probably would've been better to take it all here first, but I have the flu and don't currently have the brain capacity to explain what it was I wanted changed. But as far as prose goes, I believe the article from Themes onward is spot-on. I couldn't see anything from that point onwards that needed changing. The only issues I had were in the Plot section, but they were fairly minor – clarity and consistency – and I think I resolved most of them anyway. There are just two sentences in the third paragraph I couldn't take care of myself: "Valentine and Morales continue, picking up stranded civilian L.J. along the way" I don't know why, but this just rolls off my tongue the wrong way, but I couldn't rephrase it and avoid having "L.J.." or "L.J.," appear, which just look even worse. Also, "Angela reveals that the zombie outbreak is the result of a virus created by her father to treat the genetic disease from which she suffers" — I'm sure this could also be re-arranged a better way, but I have Kristen Schaal from The Last Man on Earth screaming "'Out for what do you need that gun'?" in my head; you know, ending sentences with prepositions and all that.
So, with this in mind, maybe @J Milburn: may want to take another look at the article. And, sorry, @Casliber:, I believe my edit completely stepped on the toes of your comments above; some of those issues still present (ending the first Plot paragraph with "The film ended with..." is a good idea), but I inadvertently resolved most of your points. Anyway, sorry for rambling. Happy to support this article for promotion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your edits and support Homeostasis07. I think the L.J. sentence was reading awkwardly because it rhymed; I've reworded accordingly. I'm having some trouble thinking of a way to reword the other sentence at the moment. I'll take another look at it later. Freikorp (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, @Homeostasis07: I saw your changes as an improvement. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Let There Be Sunshine

edit

This is my first review for any GA/FA/FL. :) Some minor suggestions listing down:

  • In the lead, Carlos Olivera is directly linked, but in Plot and Cast it's a redirect. Could follow a consistent style, I would prefer the former.
  • Don't forget to use non-breaking space between numbers and units (do not use in infobox).
  • In Pre-production, Sony → Sony Pictures
  • In box office, link "$" in $23 million and unlink from $129,394,835
  • In box office, UK → United Kingdom
  • All the above have been fixed.
  • In the second sentence in box office, it is said that the film performed well in some countries and lackluster in Sweden, but without the box office numbers that sentence looks vague. Is there any way you could find the figures ?
  • I found the figures and added them. I also inadvertently found some other box office results in the process and added those as well.
  • In Critical response, BOMB → bomb
  • Done.
  • In Home media, rating in Blu-ray.com is user generated, better remove it.
  • Done.
  • How is Category:German film relevant here ?
  • Not sure who added that. Removed.
  • In image alt texts, replace "brunette woman" and "Caucasian man" with their names. Present text is similar to the Queen's example. Need to rewrite to something in the line of "Paul W. S. Anderson seated in front of a microphone and looking sideways" or "photograph of Milla Jovovich looking straight to the camera".
  • Reworded.

The article looks good to me. Good work. Will pass this once these concerns are addressed. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review Let There Be Sunshine. I've tried to address everything. Freikorp (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the corrections. I support this nomination. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

edit

I didn't think I'd read a film article I'd enjoy quite this much. Many of the issues I might have raised have been addressed above. I'll happy give my Support to this nomination. Congrats, Freikorp. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2018 [42].

Siege of Constantinople (674–678)

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first major Arab attack on the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. It was essentially rewritten from scratch some time ago, in 2012, along with its pendant, the Siege of Constantinople (717–718), which became an FA already at the time. The only reason I did not nominate this too for FA then was that I had glimpsed somewhere about Howard-Johnston's different opinion of these events and the poem of Theodosius Grammaticus, but could not yet source them properly. This has now been done, and some details have also been added to the siege's cultural impact (thanks to PericlesofAthens), news of which apparently reached as far as China. The time has come to complete this article's progression. Any comments and suggestions as to further improvement are, of course, welcome. Constantine ✍ 22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class (5 years ago!) As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: a shining example of Wiki's finest work. Well done, sir! It was a pleasure to read this article. As for my little contribution regarding the siege in medieval Chinese historical records, perhaps a small little blurb about that can be added to the third paragraph of the lead section. That small paragraph, which discusses both Greek and Arab historiography, could also provide a little sentence summarizing the Chinese historiography on the matter. Just a thought! Cheers and congratulations on crafting a fine article. Pericles of AthensTalk 08:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you followed my suggestion about adding a sentence to the lead regarding Chinese historiography. Excellent! It looks fantastic. Kind regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 17:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

Just a few very minor format issues:

Otherwise sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and the first culmination of the Umayyad Caliphate's expansionist strategy towards the Byzantine Empire - must say I am not thrilled with this sentence...sounds a bit bureaucratic....but an alternative isn't springing to mind...
Hmmm, which elements precisely are "bureaucratic"? Perhaps "the culmination of the expansionist strategy pursued by the Umayyad caliph Mu'awiya I towards the Byzantine Empire", rather than the caliphate as a whole? Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"culmination of..expansionist strategy" sounds like something from an annual business report of a multinational. That said, I know what it means and I can't think of an alternative, so don't regard it as a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Arab land army in Asia Minor was also defeated by the Byzantines, forcing the Arabs to lift the siege. - I'd switch this to, "The Byzantines also defeated the Arab land army in Asia Minor, forcing them to lift the siege. "
Good point, done. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that both Byzantine and Arab chroniclers record the siege as lasting for seven years instead of five - the " It should also be noted that" - sounds a bit essaylike. Can we just remove it?
Done. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise reads well. I am not familiar with the topic matter but it seems sort of complete I guess....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time, if you are not familiar with it but it reads well, then my main objective is accomplished :). As regards completeness, I can confidently say that it is the most complete single account of the siege and associated scholarship I know of online, and probably (I don't have access to some recent published sources) also in print as well. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Lead
  • ¶3 "The siege left several traces in the legends of the nascent Muslim world, although it is conflated with accounts of another expedition against the city a few years previously, led by the future Caliph Yazid I. As a result, the veracity of Theophanes's account has been questioned by recent scholarship, which places more emphasis on the Arabic and Syriac sources. On the other hand, echoes of a large siege of Constantinople and a subsequent peace treaty reached China, where they were recorded in later histories of the Tang dynasty." – The main text suggests that most modern historians accept Theophanes's account but that James Howard-Johnston does not. Instead of saying "questioned by recent scholarship, which places...", it might be more appropriate to say "was questioned in 2010 by Oxford scholar James Howard-Johnston, who placed...".
Background
  • ¶1 "The Arab sources on the other hand report...". – Delete "The" since this is the first time in the main text that Arab sources have been mentioned?
Hmmm, indeed. Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opening moves: the campaigns of 672 and 673
  • ¶1 "The undertaking was not haphazard, but followed a careful, phased approach...". - Trim by four words? "The undertaking followed a careful, phased approach...".
Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arab attacks and related expeditions in 674–678
  • ¶2 "... led a campaign in 677, whose target is unknown." - Maybe "the target of which is unknown" since a campaign is a which rather than a who?
Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural impact
  • ¶2 "...account where he mentions an augmentation of tributary payments a few years later due to the Umayyads facing some financial troubles." - Substitute "which" for "where" and tighten the ending a bit? Suggestion: "...account in which he mentions an augmentation of tributary payments a few years later when the Umayyads faced financial troubles."
Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Modern reassessment of the events
  • ¶1 "The Syriac chroniclers also disagree with Theophanes in placing the decisive battle and destruction of the Arab fleet by Greek fire in 674, during an Arab expedition against the coasts of Lycia and Cilicia, rather than Constantinople." - More clear without the two commas?
Removed the first, I think the second is best kept. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • No problems with dablinks.
  • No dead URLs.
  • Has alt text.
  • No overlinks.
Hello Finetooth, and thanks for taking the time, and for your suggestions and edits. I have implemented most of your suggestions. Any further comments, apart from and beyond FA requirements? As I wrote in response to Casliber above, I am keen to know the impression upon the uninitiated reader. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. Uninitiated, I found the maps, especially the one in the infobox, helpful in understanding some of the basic elements of the historic account(s). A most interesting and enjoyable read. Finetooth (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What Finetooth has written, immediately above, applies precisely to my view of this fine article. As a complete layman I found the article easy to understand, widely sourced and splendidly illustrated. As far as I can see it meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to add my support for promotion. Tim riley talk 20:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Tim riley for your kind words, and a happy new year! Constantine ✍ 08:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2018 [43].

Washington State Route 520

edit
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This highway is the bane of thousands of daily commuters in the Seattle area, with its daily bouts of congestion (in both directions, twice a day) and never-ending construction. It connects the headquarters of tech giants Amazon and Microsoft using the world's longest and widest floating bridge, which was recently completed to replace a decades-old bridge. SounderBruce 05:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rschen7754

Noting that I do intend to take a look at this, though unfortunately it might not be until after the holiday period. --Rschen7754 19:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. --Rschen7754 02:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • which continued east towards Redmond - not clear what this is referring to
    • Fixed.
  • and the eastern approach to Houghton and Bellevue at a temporary interchange with 104th Avenue Northeast - something seems missing, like an "up to"
    • Fixed.
  • already had a HOV lane installed in the 1980s - this is a bit awkward
    • Rewrote and updated the section.
  • Mass transit - do we have statistics later than 2009?
  • Inflation has been switched to US-GDP.

This completes the review. --Rschen7754 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

Mainly, just a few minor format points:

  • Refs 7, 20, 21, 33: HistoryLink not being a printed source, should not be italicised
  • Ref 11: likewise "Crosscut"
  • Ref 12: link goes to a blank page, as does the archived link
  • Ref 32: For some reason you've added "Associated Press" to this Seattle Times citation, but not to the others.

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the source review.
  • I have un-italicized HistoryLink, but kept Crosscut italicized, as it is an online newspaper. Un-italicizing it would mean, for consistency, some Post-Intelligencer links would switch (as it has been an online newspaper since 2009).
  • Ref 12: The link works for me (Chrome on Windows 8.1) as a PDF that is embedded into the page, so it seems to be a plugin issue. There is an interactive version of the map, but it is harder to archive.
  • Refs 32 and 36: These two Times articles originated from the AP, and credited as such, while the others were original reports.
Hope that addressed some of your concerns. SounderBruce 05:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy. Brianboulton (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dough4872:

  1. In the first paragraph of the lead, you begin two consecutive sentences with "SR 520".
    1. Fixed, though I had to throw out the mention of 520 being a "major regional freeway".
  2. Since you defined the abbreviation for Interstate 5 is I-5, you do not need to do the same for I-405. Therefore it should say "SR 520 intersects several state highways, including Interstate 5 (I-5) in Seattle, I-405 in Bellevue, and SR 202 in Redmond."
    1. Fixed.
  3. "The original Evergreen Point Floating Bridge was opened in 1963 as a replacement for the cross-lake ferry system that had operated since the turn of the century.", turn of what century? Better to clarify here, i.e. "beginning of 20th century" or whatever might work better.
    1. Fixed.
  4. You do not need to define what SR 920 stands for as you already defined what SR X stands for in the first sentence. Therefore it should say "replacing the temporary designation of SR 920"
    1. Fixed.
  5. Make sure to wikilink some of the places in the lead if they are not already linked there.
    1. Added two missing links.
  6. Again do not need to define what I-5 stands for.
    1. Fixed.
  7. How many lanes wide is SR 520? This should be mentioned in the route description.
    1. Generally six lanes (2 HOV + 4 GP), but there's some exit lanes and a C-D system thrown in. I added a mention of the HOV lanes and the six-lane portion on the bridge.
  8. In the first section of the history, I-5 and I-405 should be abbreviated.
    1. Fixed.
  9. In the second section of the history, SR 520 should be abbreviated.
    1. Changed to emphasize the 1964-era name for the highways (later changed to State Route in 1970).
  10. What local roads did SR 520 use for its temporary route?
    1. Added the two roads and map references.
  11. Do we need to use the formal name for the bridge in the exit list? I think the common name would be better here. Dough4872 02:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 02:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

  • This is clear, informative, and highly detailed. I made a small number of minor edits, and I have only two suggestions.
Route description
  • ¶4 "...a Highway of Statewide Significance, which includes highways...". – Modify slightly to "...Highway of Statewide Significance, a category that includes highways..."?
General
  • Alt text looks fine.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No problems with disambiguation.
  • Many duplicate links. About 15 such as Roanoke Park are linked in the "Route description" and then linked again in the lower sections. I doubt that any main-text duplicates are necessary.

Support from Adityavagarwal

Support—I gave this article a read the other night, and I offered my comments to SounderBruce off-wiki. I've made a few other minor edits along the way, but I feel this article is ready and merits promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 07:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2018 [44].

Tommy Phillips

edit
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my inaugural Hockey Hall of Fame inductees, and probably my last as its getting difficult to find enough material to create FA-quality articles (and length; this one is a little over 1600 words). It passed GA recently, and I found some more things to add to it and get it more comprehensive. Unfortunately there is hardly anything on Phillips after his retirement from hockey, except for his sudden death. Otherwise I think it should be alright. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg, File:KenoraThistles1907January.jpg. Note that since these are on Commons, if they were first published in Canada we also need to account for their Canadian status, not just US.
  • File:KenoraThistles19051906.jpg: BackCheck link is dead, and if author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the information regarding KenoraThistles19051906.jpg; the link to Library and Archives Canada states its copyright is expired. I sent emails to the physical owners of the Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg and KenoraThistles1907January.jpg images (TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg is a derivative of the latter, so unless I'm mistaken it is under the same status?) I will continue to confirm when they were first published, though they were promotional images that would have been reproduced in newspapers across Canada; I just don't have access to a newspaper archive to prove this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've since gotten an email response regarding Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg from the owner of the image (the Lake of the Museum), confirming that it is in the public domain. What would be the most appropriate way to edit the image to reflect this then? (Still waiting on the Hockey Hall of Fame, who owns the KenoraThistles1907January.jpg copy, to reply, though I suspect it will be similar). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did they say? Did they specify where and why the image was PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it was nothing more than a confirmation that the image is in the public domain. I sent a follow-up in hopes of more detail, though I'm not sure that will happen. Any update I'll note here, of course. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up email only noted that the image is roughly from 1901–1902, and nothing else more. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've been in contact with the LOTW Museum, and they have said that the two images in question are both in the public domain, and while they can't confirm an initial publication date, they have been reproduced enough that there is no longer any concerns about their status. So I'm wondering what would be the best way to note their license on Wikimedia in that regard? Kaiser matias (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the earliest publication we can find for each of these images, and would Canadian copyright have applied to all of them? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) As noted, it is going to be a challenge to find that, without combing through some local newspaper archive in northern Ontario (and I'm about as far away from there as possible). However I have the relevant information from the museum, and have updated the license to reflect that even if they may be copyrighted (which they are almost certainly not), the museum is the current owner of them and has their reference number provided, and allows them to be freely used and distributed. I hope this will satisfy any issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it will be challenging to find the first publication - my question for the moment is, what is the earliest publication we do know of? Depending on when that was, it might be possible to sidestep the issue, if we can safely assume that first publication was Canadian. However, as newspaper photos, it's unlikely that the museums holding them are the copyright owners if copyright subsists. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest I can reliably say without much trouble would be the Coleman book used as a reference in the article, The Trail of the Stanley Cup, which was published in 1964. That is obviously too late to confirm its public domain status, though there would be earlier publications, I just don't have the actual publication at the time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is there a copyright notice in that book, or any credit information for the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than credit to the Hockey Hall of Fame. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching, I found some evidence that confirm the images to their era: regarding KenoraThistles1907January.jpg, an auction of a postcard with the image dated to January 1907 exists. There was a similar auction from the same group for Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg, though it fails to note an exact year, only stating it is from the era. This may be the most definitive proof available regarding the publication of the images in question, as there is not likely to be much else from then. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Looks like they're not postcards but actually original photos, based on the description? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) That could be possible, though I of course can't confirm that. Though would that make a difference, considering they still fall under the time frame for public domain?
And on a related note, I have finally gotten a reply from the Hockey Hall of Fame. They confirmed the images are in the public domain, but were unable to give a date for their first publication. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would, because postcards are considered published while a photo by itself may or may not, and we want to know whether {{PD-URAA}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}} applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There is other images from the same auction site (see this for example) that confirm it was used as a postcard, but they don't have a date on the card itself. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, as noted below here, would it be possible to argue fair use for at least the main image? As noted, there is no objection from any of the major stakeholders of the image (the Hockey Hall of Fame, or the Lake of the Woods Museum), so is that an acceptable means for this? Kaiser matias (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By main image, do you mean the one in the infobox? You'd be able to argue fair use if you can't find any image of him that is definitely free, using {{non-free biog-pic}}. However, if you can demonstrate a postcard publication from that era, it would probably now be free. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the above-linked images show that they come from that era? That seems fairly definitive in that regard. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the information I've provided, I feel it shows that the images were published in 1907, and thus have had the licenses on them updated to reflect this fact. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:KenoraThistles1907January.jpg is fine as a 1907 postcard, and File:TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg as derivative of same. For the other images, the situation is less clear - the site you've linked for the 1900 image is a photo not a postcard. Do you have links for those demonstrating publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've been unable to find anything more solid for the 1900 image, as seen above. However as that is less important than the 1907 one (which is the image most associated with Phillips), I'll remove it. That should (finally) solve this. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right, should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Note 33: Harvard error
  • References: There appears to be no citation to "Hockey Hall of Fame"

Subject to these points, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both of these. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

edit
Lead
  • ¶2 His younger brother, Russell, also played for the Thistles and was a member of the team when they won the Stanley Cup." – Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any mention of Russell Phillips in the main text.
Added something.
Early life
  • ¶1 "...James took up a job in Western Ontario..." – I think you can safely delete "up" or change "took up" to the more formal "accepted".
Done
  • ¶2 "...championship of the Manitoba and Northwest Hockey Association..." – Should this be the Manitoba and Northwestern Hockey Association? If so, link Manitoba and Northwestern Hockey Association (MNWHA) and abbreviate here on first use in the main text.
  • ¶2 A further problem with the MNWHA here and in the "Career statistics" section is that the date (1903) in the MNWHA article and the dates (1899–1902) given in this article don't match. It might be a junior, intermediate, senior complication. Can you clarify?
That is the problem for the above note too. I initially thought they were the same league, but it was not unusual for league's to use either identical or nearly identical names at the time. As the article only notes the 1903–04 season (and unfortunately the link is deadd), I'm inclined to believe it is different, and thus don't want to link it. It would certainly be better to have a linked article for the respective league here, but that just isn't possible at the time.
But you have already linked it in the "Career statistics" section, where it creates the same confusion for readers who click through to read about the league. Suggestion: Delete the MNWHA link (which is not dead) from "Career statistics" but add a note explaining that early hockey leagues sometimes used overlapping names (or whatever is the case). You'll need to cite a reliable source or sources for this note, which will head off the possibility that without the note other editors will later add the misleading link to the MNWHA article. I think you could put the note between a pair of ref tags inserted after MNWHA the first time it appears in the article in the "Early life" section. Does that make sense? Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "By 1899–00 Phillips had joined the senior Thistles team, and would be named captain the following season, when they won the senior league championship." – The dates don't match here either. The MNWHA article (which may be incorrect) says the Thistles played for only one year, when it lost the championship to Ottawa in 1903.
Removed the link in the stats section, and added a note to the reference for the league within the text.
See above. As Phillips had already moved to Montreal by 1903, he definitely was not around for that championship series, which is corroborated by various sources.
Done
Kenora and Ottawa
  • ¶1 "Rat Portage changed its name from to Kenora in 1905." – Unclear. Does this mean the city or the team or both?
Clarified
  • ¶1 "one of the best players in Canada, compared to Frank McGee of the Senators" – I think this is the first time in the article that "Senators" appears. For clarity, explain here or above that it refers to the Ottawa team.
Done
Added some details and context to it, and reworded that whole section slightly. It should be clearer now.
Western Canada and later life
  • ¶1 "played with Edmonton" – Link the Edmonton team here on first use?
Done
  • ¶1 "met their team in Winnipeg" – Link to the city of Winnipeg article here?
Done
Career statistics
  • Since all the abbreviations but GP are linked to explanations, link GP to Games played as well?
Done
General
  • Concise alt text would be nice even though not required.
Added some alt text, though should probably be looked over as I'm not great at it.
Thanks. I fiddled with them a bit, mostly compressing to make them more concise, and I repaired the alt parameter (alt= rather than alt_image=) in the infobox. Please tweak further if you think any of my changes are unhelpful. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with dead URLs.
  • No problem with disambiguation links.
  • No problem with overlinks.
Addressed everything here. Would appreciate a look at the alt text, it's not a strength of mine. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks fine except the MNWHA confusion, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Think I have that addressed now in a decent manner. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. All looks good. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Interesting little article. I came up with a handful of minor nit-picks, which are as follows:

  • "and with the Kenora Thistles in January 1907, whom he captained." The last bit of the sentence relates to the team, not the year, so this should really be "Thistles, whom he captained, in January 1907."
  • Western Canada and later life: "and prior to the 1909 season played with Edmonton of the Alberta Amateur Hockey Association." Since he wouldn't have played with them before the season, try changing it to "joined Edmonton" or similar.
  • "played in the first game against the Montreal Wanderers, which Edmonton lost 7–3, but broke his ankle in the game and was forced to miss the second game". For tighter writing, try removing "in the game" after the ankle break. It's pretty obvious from the surrounding text that it happened in the first game.
    • Looking at this, I think the wrong "in the game" was removed. I was thinking that it should be "played in the first game against the Montreal Wanderers, which Edmonton lost 7–3, but broke his ankle and was forced to miss the second game". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that; also corrected the score, which seems to have been copied from the first game. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He played the 1909–10 with the local team". Should the first "the" be "in" instead"?
  • Minor point, but the bit from the lead about the first Hall of Fame class having nine inductees isn't repeated in the body from what I can tell.
  • Finally, some (attempted) words of wisdom: If you're having a lot of trouble with the image licensing, you're probably better off just removing them from the article, or possibly making a fair-use case for the lead photo. Images aren't required by the FA criteria, and to me it's more important to get a thumbs-up for the licensing than it is to fight hard for any particular image. If reviewers see issues in this department, they'll often just pass over an article regardless of its other merits. I don't want that to happen here, as I find the page to be worthy of more attention. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed everything here. As for the images, I'll note it above, and see what Nikkimaria says, as she has far more knowledge of that than I do. Thanks for the suggestion. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Once the photo issue is worked out, please consider this a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Note to Coordinators I'm going to be on vacation until January 1, so if there are any comments left between now and then, that is why I'm not answering them. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique

edit

Lead

  • "whom he captained". Shouldn't that be "which he captained"?
Changed
  • "in 1903 ... in January 1907." Why give the month for one championship, but not for the other?
Usually it would just be the year. However in 1907 the Cup was won initially by Kenora, who lost it in a series held two months later. As such the two 1907 champions are always listed with the month they won as well.
  • I would add a sentence near the end about his retirement/lumber company/death.
Done

Early life

  • "James, who". How about "James Phillips," to avoid referring to him by his first name?
Done
  • "He had previously been married, with a son and two daughters." The second clause looks grammatically off. How about "He had a son and two daughters from a previous marriage."? If you want to avoid the "[name of person}/he/he" to lead off three successive sentences, you could change the next sentence so that it begins with "On April 30, 1877".
Done
  • "James accepted job". Missing "a".
Done
  • "was born in 1888;". Not sure the semicolon is necessary. For whatever it's worth I generally try to use only one per paragraph. Interestingly, every paragraph in the article either has two (5 paragraphs) or zero (7) semicolons.
Removed that one. I do have a habit of overusing them, it's true, so glad to be called out on it.
  • "As a young child Phillips ... Northwest Hockey Association." Perhaps break in two.
Split it up.
  • "for his endurance; in an era ... entire game: a posthumous newspaper". Sorry to make another point about punctuation, but also not a fan of having both a semicolon and a colon in one sentence.
Modified it to just one colon, should be better.
  • "play for an entire 60 at full speed". Consider adding "[minutes]" after "60".
Done
  • "Originally a forward when he joined the senior Thistles". "Originally" is redundant.
Removed
  • "for 1900–01". Should either be "in 1900–01," or "for [or during] the 1900–01 season".
Fixed
  • "Phillips also earned praise for his defensive efforts, in particular his ability to stop Tony Gingras." Three things: "ability" doesn't quite mesh with "efforts," Tony Gingras should be given some context ("to stop Tony Gingras, one of Winnipeg's leading scorers" or whatever), and (minor suggestion) "in particular" could be "particularly".
Reworded
  • "The Marlboros lost the series, though Phillips had the most assists and penalty minutes". "though" doesn't feel quite right when it's followed by both a plus (lots of assists) and a minus (most minutes as a forced spectator).
Added the qualifier "as well as," though if that can be improved further I'll do so.

Kenora and Ottawa

  • "two behind Billy McGimsie." Maybe "less than" instead of "behind". "behind" feels better when you use it two paragraphs later, since there you're saying "behind the leaders".
Done
  • "which allowed them to". Minor suggestion, but maybe "allowing them to".
Changed
  • "'nine of out ten people will reply that either Frank McGee or Tom Phillips is' the best player in the country." What's the full quotation from the source?
I can't get access to the Jenish book now, but a search for the quote turns up a 1906 Winnipeg Tribune article, which I believe is the source for Jenish: "Who Is the best hockey player In Canada? asks the Montreal Herald. Nine out of ten people will reply that either Frank McGee or Tom Phillips is."
  • "Phillips scored the first two goals, then added another three goals". You could delete the second "goals" if you want to.
  • "scored the first goal of the game, along with a further two goals". The hat trick is more significant than the first goal. How about "scored three goals [possibly linked to Hat-trick#Hockey], including the game's first..."
Changed
  • "Ottawa won the game 5–4 to retain the Cup." Did you already say somewhere that Ottawa had won the previous season as well? If not, "to take the Cup for the second year running." or something similar would be more appropriate.
I added a mention earlier, where it says the Thistles earned the right to play for it.
  • "which allowed them the right to challenge for the Cup again." The link feels random here, and would be better used for the same phrase in the preceding paragraph.
Moved
  • "The following season". This paragraph confuses me. You say they had to wait a year for the challenge, but it looks like you then start talking about the next season, without ever saying what happened with the previous, postponed, challenge. Was it played? Did Phillips play in it? Who won? I'd also clarify that "The following season" means the 1905–06 season.
Clarified it.
  • "Phillips led the league in both goals and points, with eighteen." Should be "eighteen of each." Looking at his stats, how did he manage to go his first eight (recorded) years without an assist?
Assists were either not awarded, or rarely done, in the early years of hockey. As such I removed the reference to points, as it's redundant. I expound on this down regarding the statistics table.
  • "However, there was an early spring that year". How about "There was an early spring that year, however, ..."?
Done
  • "In the 1907 season". The season didn't span two years?
Honestly I'm not sure, as at the time it could start as early as November or late as January; but for consistency I added the second year.
  • "A rematch two months". How about "A #-game rematch two months", to give some context for his stats.
Added that
  • "Ottawa sportsmen." Who do you mean?
I don't have Kitchen's book with me to confirm, but I suspect it would be financial backers of the sports teams. Either way it seems trivial here, so I removed it.
  • "He finished the season with twenty-six, two goals behind". This should be "with twenty-six goals, two behind".
Fixed

Western Canada and later life

  • "The Edmonton hockey team". How about "The Edmonton Hockey Club" so their full name is somewhere.
Added it to the preceding sentence, as its linked already.
  • "the rest came from the east". Feels weird to have something that could be a standalone sentence as a clause here. How about "with the rest coming from the east."?
Changed
  • "but broke his ankle". Any fallout from this? Is what he did while recovering known?
Alas no, player profiles were almost nonexistent from the era, and that this much is known is quite a bit even.
  • "retired at the end of the season". Could be "again retired", or "retired for a second time" or the like.
Fixed

Career statistics

  • Are the "—" stats just not known?
They are for the most part yes. Statistics in the early years are notoriously poor, and often times only included games played and goals scored. For whatever reason there is no consensus on using either a "0" or "–" in place of missing (or incomplete) stats, so the result is a patchwork, especially regarding things like assists and penalties. However the numbers given are copied from the Diamond book, which retains the most comprehensive stats of early-era players, in all its mangled mess, and as much as I'd like to make it all uniform, it would go against the source.


Overall

  • I really like this article. Most of what is above is minor and discretionary; there's only one sentence (about Tony Gingras) and one paragraph (about the early spring) that gave me trouble, but those are easily fixable. The other semi-significant thing is the lack of a line in the lead about his after-hockey years. Loved this line, by the way: "This required the approval of the other university clubs, which agreed on the condition that Phillips end his McGill career, which he did." --Usernameunique (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed everything above. I also agree that there is a serious lack about his post-playing career, but unfortunately there just wasn't an interest at the time in former hockey players, so no one bothered to write about his life after that; even articles from the time of his death simply say he worked in the lumber industry, which is a shame. If there's anything more to fix, just let me know, I'll get to it soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiser matias, looks great, you've got my support. Made a few copy edits to the article (I'm responsible for the less/fewer mistake, oops), and one suggestion (regarding your comment above), which you're free to revert. I was wondering about the full quotation to see if there would be a way to have "the best player in the country" in quotes as well, but I see why you broke it up. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2018 [45].

The Shawshank Redemption

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much like it's central character, after over 20 years of being imprisoned in sub-GA status, The Shawshank Redemption has acquired a rock hammer (me) to dig a tunnel to GAdom, and now we just need a Red to help us escape, crawl through a tunnel of shit (FA nomination process) and come out clean on the other side as a Featured article. Which one of you will be Red to this article's Andy? Which of you will be Warden Norton only to be overcome by hope? TL;DR, think this article is pretty good, would appreciate input. Thanks in advance. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but I strongly suggest you go through the references before someone reviews them, as there are quite a few formatting errors and inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, I've taken a quick look and I've addressed what I can find. Was there anything specific you noticed or is there a tool to help point things out? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, there are issues with the use of |publisher= vs |work=/|newspaper= - publications like the Los Angeles Times should use the latter. Also, should use a timecode to specify where we can find specific facts cited to a video, and citations to multiple pages should use pp. rather than p. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will have a look after work. The publisher v work thing never seems to be consistently applied across articles, since sometimes I have no issue on FA noms and sometimes I do. With the references being websites and publishers routinely changing, I considered the paper to be the publisher of the information, but I can fix these. I thought all time codes were present but I'll take a look at these to. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria:, I've tried to address the issues. After reading through Template: Cite web, I learned that the preference is to use the "website" parameter and that "publisher" becomes largely redundant when doing that. It seemed to make more sense since they are websites being cited so I've changed them over. Hopefully that is the right thing to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's considerably better, although a few things have moved that shouldn't have (a good check is to see if the article about the source italicizes it - if no, the citations probably shouldn't). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another pass Nikkimaria, it's quite hard. Like I switched Rotten Tomatoes from "website" to "work" but that still italicizes it, but reading template: web cite, the publisher would be fandango not Rotten Tomatoes, so there's no field I could use to not italicize it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to comment that with this article on my watch list (and having contributed to it before), DWB has done an amazing job over the last few months elevating it from its prior state to bring it here. I'm not saying its flawless (see other comments), but I'm pretty confident this meets the key FAC aspects, and should more help be needed, I'll try to throw my hat in. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

edit

Initial comments after skimming and doing some minor copy edits:

  • Why is some of the cast bullet listed, while the rest are listed in paragraph form?
  • The Music subsection contains two paragraphs and an image that are marked out as hidden comments. Why?
  • "Andy's incarceration between 1946 and 1966 (1947 and 1975 in the novel), largely overlaps with Nixon's presidency which ended in disgrace." The 1946-66 range doesn't overlap Nixon's presidency at all; 1947-75 overlaps it completely, but that is the novel, not the subject of this article.
  • "Despite its poor box office returns, The Shawshank Redemption opened to generally positive reviews." The mention of "poor box office" is repetitive since it is mentioned multiple times in the previous section. Also, most reviews are released before box office returns are known, so positive reviews do not happen "despite" the box office.
  • I spotted various phrasings that seem odd for an encyclopedia article; for example: "earning a spell", "the like of which", "male-centric".

Will attempt a more thorough reading/review later. --RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The bulleted cast are the people billing as starring roles per the poster and infobox. The rest are in paragraph form to avoid a long list of minor roles.
  • That was information present in the article before I started work on it but couldn't find a source for it, I've removed it.
  • If I change it to partially and mention the novel largely overlaps would that make a difference? It's from a book on the film, and it's suggesting a basis for the character of Warden Norton, so i think it's inclusion in some form would be useful, but I get what you're saying.
  • thanks for the advice, I've rewrote this.
  • I've tried to rectify the ones you've noted let me know if you find any more. I think "male-centric" is a reasonable word though? Could change to male-orientated maybe.
  • Thanks for taking the time to review this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Ref 3: content behind paywall, therefore needs subscription template
  • Ref 21: The source article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
  • Refs 33 and 45 appear to be identical
  • Ref 93: There's no need to replicate the capitals, which look shouty and out-of-place here.
  • Ref 121: Ref shows a different title from the source.

Otherwise, sources seem thoroughly prepared, consistently formatted, and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Brian. I've added the subscription template for Ref 3, removed duplicate reference 45, sorted the CAPS on ref 93 and deadurl'd ref 121, seems they replaced it with a more up to date version. For Ref 21, it says the Observer but when I click the Observe link it brings me to the Guardian website with the Observer as a subsection. Searching the review brings me back to the original link, so I don't know if it should remain the Guardian or the Guardian would be the publisher and The Observer would be the work. Any advice? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you use "work= The Observer" rather than "website= The Guardian", you'll get the necessary italicisation without disturbing anything else. This could be done generally for all those cases where the original source was a newspaper or journal. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

edit

FYI: I hardly do any edits to film-related articles.Idon't watch a lot of movies, but I've always enjoyed this one. Overall, the article looks pretty good. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Frank Medrano plays Fat Ass, one of Andy's fellow new inmates who is beaten to death by Hadley..." beaten to death? I just watched the scene again. Hadley beats him severely, and tells one of the guards to "take that tub of shit down to the infirmary." I watched his chest and could see that, even after the beating stopped, he was still breathing. Are you sure about this? Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andy's incarceration between 1946 and 1966 (1947 and 1975 in the novel), occurs alongside Nixon's presidency which ended in disgrace." Nixon was president from 1969 to 1974. I can't say I see the correlation. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scene featured Freeman throwing and catching a baseball with another inmate throughout it." I suggest combining this sentence with the one before it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback. As for your points:
  • He dies in the infirmary from his injuries, it's mentioned in the diner scene the following day. Unless you mean that he didn't die there and then from the beatings?
  • The line is drawing a comparison between Nixon and Norton, but you're the second person to bring this up so I've just removed it.
  • Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AmericanAir88

edit
  • Support Very well written. Heres your ticket to Zihuatanejo.

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • For the first sentence of the lead, I would include the year in which King’s novella was released.
  • I am little confused by the following sentence “As of 2017, the film is still broadcast regularly, and is popular in several countries, with audience members and celebrities citing its themes.”, specifically the “with audience members and celebrities citing its themes”. Citing the themes as what? How do these two groups cite the themes?
  • I would include ALT text for the images. The infobox one and the ones in the body of the article.
  • I would include the year in which King’s novella The Body was released.
  • I think that it would be more beneficial to move the images of Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman to the “Casting” subsection as that is where the actors are discussed the most. This part is up to personal preference to so feel free to disagree, as it is just a suggestion.
  • For this part (When Robbins was cast he insisted), please add a comma after “cast”.
  • For this part (behind sex-comedy Exit to Eden ($3 million), and just ahead of Quiz Show ($2.1 million), which was in its fifth week at the cinemas.), I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of “Quiz Show” just to be consistent within the sentence.
  • For this sentence (The film closed in late November 1994, after 10 weeks with an approximate total gross of $16 million.), I would replace “The film” with “The Shawshank Redemption” as you have mentioned two other films in the previous sentence.
  • For this part (by its tenth anniversary in 2004 he was still earning six-figure residual payments), add a comma after “2004”.
  • For the “Lasting reception” subsection, is there any particular reason for the separation of the second and third paragraphs?
  • How is the “Lasting reception” subsection different from the “Legacy” section? Couldn’t the information from the subsection be merged into the section?
  • Could you expand on this part (The film was adapted into a 2015 stage play in the United Kingdom.), such as who wrote the play, the actors that originated the role, and its critical reception/commercial performance?

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done by AmericanAir88, thanks!
  • I've tried to reword it, think it was changed slightly in a copy edit it.
  • Done
  • Done by AmericanAir88
  • I added an image of Brown there, I would like to have an image there of Gunton ideally since there is a lot of discussion relating to him there but can't find a free image. I prefer the Cast Pics where they are now as it kills a lot of white space and quickly identifies the key players.
  • Done by AmericanAir88
  • Done
  • Done by AmericanAir88
  • Done
  • Done
  • Removed. After researching it, the play is based on the original story not the film
  • Thanks for your time reviewing this! 23:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

edit
  • Can you find a wikilink for "Christian mysticism". Sounds like Voodoo.
  • Wikilink "The Last Supper" (not to the fresco).

Other than that, I don't see much fault with the article, Darkwarriorblake. I support this article's promotion. In my humble and honest opinion, it is the best film of the 1990s. Please do take the time to review my FAC. Let me know if you wish to do so. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks SSven. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 [46].

The Breeders Tour 2014

edit
Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about an impromptu tour that the Breeders went on three years ago to practice some then-unrecorded new material. It has been recently peer reviewed. I've thoroughly researched the topic, and believe the resulting article is a representative survey of available sources and is comprehensive in covering all the relevant details out there about this short tour. I look forward to your comments. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (comprised thirteen concerts in central and western United States), do you think it would be beneficial to link for Central United States and Western United States?
  • For this part (The tour received good reviews from critics), I would link critics to music criticism.
  • For this part (and the title track from the Safari EP), please provide a link for EP.

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aoba. Thank you very much for your comments. I have linked "Music criticism" and "Extended play" as you suggested. I feel wiki-linking each of "Central United States" and "Western United States" would be too much—for one thing, there are already quite a few links in the first sentences of the lead. But if you feel strongly these are better, I’d be happy to discuss. Let me know what you think. Thank you again! Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments, and I agree with your response regarding "Central United States" and "Western United States". I support this for promotion on the basis of prose. Hope you have a wonderful day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment review

edit

Before I complete a sources review I'd like clarification on one point. Fifty sources ("references") are listed, but there are only 38 separate citations, which indicates that 12 of the sources are not cited and shouldn't be listed as references. Is this the case? Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appear to have overlooked this, for which I sincerely apologise. On the matter of the 12 sources in the Notes, is there a particular reason why they are not formatted as citations in the normal way? I will begin my proper sources check right now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Brian, no worries at all. I had fewer than 3 supports until just now, so there would have been no chance of promotion anyway. About the Notes section, I use {{<ref group=a>}}{{/ref>}} for formatting, and I can't put another {{<ref>}} inside this to link to the Footnotes section. That's why I have done the footnotes in the Notes section as I have. I believe I'm being consistent within the Notes section itself at least. But if there is another way you recommend I format this that would be consistent between both the main text and the Notes section, I'd be happy to consider it. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use {{refn | |group= n}} for Notes, which allows for standard citation within each note. This would work. My few remaining sources points are listed below:
  • I don't think "Breeders Digest" is a print source, so shouldn't be italicised
  • Bernot: source contains the wrong link
  • Petrusich: "Spin" no longer runs a print version, so the name should not be italicised
  • Phillips: Essentially the same issue with "Blurt"
  • Rogers: Same with "Vegas Seven"

Otherwise the sources appear of appropriate quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Brianboulton. Thanks again for your sources review. I've fixed the link for Bernot, and reformatted the Notes section like you asked (I looked at your article Claudio Monteverdi to see exactly how you did it). I also de-italicized the non-print magazines. But I was wondering, could you tell me in MOS where it says that non-print magazines shouldn't be italicized. I thought I vaguely remembered seeing the opposite, that all magazines (print or online) should be italicized, but now when I look I can't seem to find anything about it either way. I'd just like to be confident going forward that I'm doing it right. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Sturmvogel_66

edit
Thank you very much for your support! Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

edit

WP:RECEPTION needs to be applied. I also don't like "of that year". --John (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thank you so much for taking time to look at the article and give feedback! I've changed the opening sentence from "September of that year" to "September 2014". This is what it originally was, but I was worried this sounded repetitive because 2014 is already mentioned earlier in the sentence. In the next few days, I'll work on aligning with RECEPTION. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, I've reworked the Reception section—let me know what you think. While before the order was strictly chronological, I've now split up the reviews into "high praise" and "praise with reservations" categories. I've also reduced the quotations and tried to vary the sentence structure even more than it was before. The four quotations I kept in the section were ones I find especially flavourful (first two) or harder to paraphrase well (last two). If these changes aren't what you had in mind, let me know, and I'm happy to take another stab at it. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi John, could I ask if you're satisfied with my changes, and whether there are any other changes you'd like to see? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
ALT text is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I was inclined to raise the issue of length, as this is unusually short. However, given that John and Ceoil both give this a pass on comprehensiveness, I'm happy to promote this. Sarastro (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2018&oldid=823269381"